Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
10 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
RR was holding money on trust for shareholders (purpose). Once it the purpose failed, it was held on trust to repay lender- because the money was given for a specific purpose, which failed, and was not to be kept for any other purpose. Some people say this is a resulting trust (not Jensen).
|
Barclays Bank v Quistclose Investments
|
|
|
Gummow J treats the secondary trust as an express trust, because you can infer an actual intention to pay the lender back if the purpose fails (this accords with Lord Wilberforce’s judgement in Barclay’s).
|
Re Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust
|
|
|
Bus ran over cadets; lots of money left over. Law presumes resulting trust in favour of surplus funds; it is up to donee (Crown) to prove intention of individuals to abandon their money- it could not. Thus, resulting trust in proportion to their donations (pari passu).
|
Re Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund
|
|
|
Man provided deposit for house, both signed mortgage so they could get it. Resulting trusts held in portions they contributed. Presumption of advancement does not apply in a de facto relationship.
|
Calverly v Green
|
|
|
Presumption now applies to mother to child as well. (So with parent to child, onus lies on parent to prove it’s not a gift.)
|
Nelson v Nelson
|
|
|
Vic SC did not apply presumption of advancement in a wife to husband case. (So with H to W, onus lies on H to prove it’s not a gift; with W to H, onus lies on H to prove it IS a gift.)
|
National Australia Bank v Maher
|
|
|
Arts and craft cottage case. Presumption of resulting trust (no presumption of advancement) but evidence of actual intention rebutted that presumption. However unconscionable to assert benemnficial interest. Failure of joint endeavour without attributable blame case.
|
Muschinski v Dodds
|
|
|
Similar to M v D, but no business endeavour- purely domestic relationship. Followed Deane J’s reasoning, put divided surplus in accordance with contributions, because domestic, rather than joint business endeavour.
|
Baumgartner v Baumgartner
|
|
|
Walton stores approach. One person represents something (eg that they would have house for life)- is then left with equitable obligation to make sure the other person is not left worse off by a failure to make good the expectation.
|
Morris v Morris
|
|
|
Walton stores approach. One person represents something (eg that they would have house for life)- is then left with equitable obligation to make sure the other person is not left worse off by a failure to make good the expectation.
|
Riches v Hogben
|
