In a trust relationship the trustee is obliged by legal rules to deal with the trust property for the benefit of other person (the beneficiaries) or for a particular purpose. The law recognises a strong fiduciary relationship berween the trustee and the beneficiaries).

A trust, simply put, separates the ownership of something and the benefit that flows from that thing (eg profit)

trustee “owns” the legal interest of the property, necessary for them to perform their duties, which are to maintain and protect the property for the beneficiary, who own the beneficial interest or equitable interest.

Young J ; Thus the substantial requirement of a deed is that it be intended by the party who does it to be the most solemn indication to the community that he really means to do what he is doing.’

‘With Torrens system land, the solemn act required is…the proper completion of the prescribed form and the registration of that dealing on the register…by completing the appropriate form and having it registered, the conveyor does the most solemn thing possible in order to divest himself of his estate.’

relates to the Torrens title land registration of the relevant document passes legal title

Maddison v Alderson (1883) 8 App Cas 476 APL 11th ed 4.35.

Waltons stores Extract mentoioned in APL 4.45 & **Pipikos v Trayans [2018] HCA 39: APL 11th ed 4.40C

This case applied the principle in Lysaght v Edwards (see below) that a specifically enforceable contract for sale of land confers on the purchaser an equitable interest in the land. However, this is only applicable where the contract is enforceable and there is no bar to award of equitable remedies for the purchaser.

Tanwar had to establish that it was against conscience for the vendors to set up termination of contract

The failure by Tanwar to avail itself of the advantages it obtained by negotiating the 2001 Deeds and by keeping the contracts on foot had the effect of exposing Tanwar again to the exercise by the vendors of their rights to terminate the contracts…Equity does not intervene to prevent the effective exercise of those rights. The claim by Tanwar for relief against the consequences of the failure in the timely provision of the second mortgage does not succeed.’

There is now a recognition of the Rule in Lysaght v Edwards. It supports the principles that equity deems to be done what ought to be done.

Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch D 9 APL 4.68C APL 11th ed 4.61

An enforceable agreement to transfer a property right will be enforced by equity despite requirements for enforcement at law not having been met

discussed the distinction between equitable and legal leases and the implications of the PLA (Qld).

execution of a deed by one party was intended to constitute delivery and was therefor binding even though it was not physically delivered to the other party

respondent executed an agreement to a lease, which was expressed to be 'executed as a deed', and returned to the appellants for execution, however before the appellants excuted the respondents withdrew. It was determined that until all the parties were bound the deed was no considered 'delivered' and thereby not binding.

deed must be signed by a witness not party to the agreement / deed

auctioneer has the authority to sign a memorandum on behalf of the vendor or the purchaser, but this can only be exercised as part of the sale transaction and not at a later time

Oglvie v Ryan [1976] 2 NSWLR 504 APL 4.44, 4.48; APL 11th ed 4.98 & 4.98C.

deposit of title documents would constitute part performance of an oral agreement to grant a mortgage even if the deposit were made by a third party

contract to sell land, payment of the purchase price and making imporvements; Pejovic v Malinic (1959) 60 SR (NSW) 184

contract to sell land; taking possession of the land - Regent v Millett (1976) 133 CLR 689

lease; improvements to the property by the lessor at the request of the lessee - Rawlinson v Ames [1925] Ch 96

mere payment of purchase money is insufficent - Britain v Rossiter (1879) 11 QBD 123

making of an application for planning permission - New Hart Builders Ltd v Brindley [1975] Ch 342

where an equitable interest comes into existence the former rights contained in the legal title is fractured

A person solely entitled to the full beneficial ownership of money or property, both at law and in equity, does not enjoy an equitable interest in that property. The legal title carries with it all the rights. Unless and until there is a separation of the legal and equitable estates, there is no separate equitable title.

requires the insurer of buildings damaged by fire on the request of any person interested to lay out the money towards rebuilding, reinstating or repairing s 58

vendor retains equitable lien over the land until the purchase price is paid see also Re Hamilton-Snowball's Conveyance [1959] Ch 308