Hussey v Palmer [1972] 3 All ER 744 at 747, [1972] 1 WLR 1286 at 1290, CA, per Lord Denning MR (with which may be contrasted the decision on similar facts in Spence v Brown [1988] Fam Law 291, CA). However, other authorities hold the view that it is unsatisfactory to use the vague concept of justice and good conscience to create equitable proprietary interests under constructive trusts which can have far-reaching implications for purchasers and for creditors under property law and under bankruptcy law: see eg Re Sharpe (a bankrupt), ex p the trustee of the bankrupt v Sharpe [1980] 1 All ER 198 at 201, 204, [1980] 1 WLR 219 at 223, 226 per Browne-Wilkinson J; cf Spence v Brown. In New Zealand, the broad rule of Lord Denning MR for the imposition of a constructive trust has been criticised as 'a supposed rule of equity which is not only vague in its outline but which must disqualify itself from acceptance as a valid principle of jurisprudence by its total uncertainty of application and result': see Carly v Farrelly [1975] 1 NZLR 356 at 367, Auck SC, per Mahon J. See also Allen v Snyder [1977] 2 NSWLR 685, NSW CA; Re McKeown [1974] NI 226.