• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

Card Range To Study



Play button


Play button




Click to flip

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;

38 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
What are the 5 circumstances which give rise to an automatic resulting trust?
1. Uncertainty of objects
2. Failure of a contingency
3. Failure to dispose of whole beneficial interest
4. Surplus funds after a valid trust has completed its purpose
5. Money given for a stated purpose which can no longer be carried out
Equity abhors a vacuum.

The beneficial interest must be held by someone and will be held on resulting trust for the settlor as a last resort.

What is the relevant case?
Vandervell v IRC (1967)
An automatic resulting trust can arise where there is 'failure of a contingency'

What is the relevant case?
Re: Ames Settlement (1946)
An automatic resulting trust can arise where there is a 'failure to dispose of the whole beneficial interest'

Give a hypothetical example.
A leaves shares to B for the rest of B's lifetime but who gets the property when B dies?

The property will result back to A's estate.
An automatic resulting trust can arise where there is a 'failure to dispose of the whole beneficial interest'

Name a relevant case.
Re: West (1900)
A resulting trust will arise where a valid trust has complete its purpose but has a surplus of funds.

Name a relevant case.
Re: West Sussex Constabulary (1976)
In Re: West Sussex Constabulary what were the 4 sources of surplus funds and what happened to them?
(i) members subscriptions
(ii) receipts from raffles & competititons
(iii) collection boxes
(iv) donations and legacies

1-3 passed to the crown as bona vacantia but 4 was held on resulting trust for the donors
Re: Printers and Transferrers' Amalgamated Trades Protection Society (1899)
When the association ceased to exist the property held by it was divided between existing members in proportion to their contributions.

However, this could only work because the contributors were ascertainable.
A resulting trust can arise where money is given for a stated purpose which cannot be carried out.

What is the key case?
Barclays Bank v Quistclose Investments (1970)
Under what two circumstances is there a 'presumed resulting trust'?
1. The voluntary conveyance of property to another

2. The purchase of property in the name of another
Equity presumes a bargain and never a gift

What is the main case?
Re: Vinogradoff (1935)
A presumed resulting trust can a rise where a property is transferred without valuable consideration.

What is the case?
Re: Vinogradoff (1935)
s60(3) Law of Property Act 1925
In a voluntary conveyance a resulting trust to the grantor shall not be implied but the case of Hodgson v Marks says basic equitable principles can override
3 ways to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust
1. Presumption of advancement
2. Loan
3. Gift
Name a case where the presumption of a resulting trust was rebutted by arguing that the transfer was an intended gift
Fowkes v Pascoe (1875)
Gascoigne v Gascoigne (1918)
Facts: Mr G bought a property in his wife's name in order to defraud his creditors. Mr G sought a declaration that Mrs G held the property on trust for him and she argued the 'presumption of advancement'

Held: The person trying to rebut the presumption cannot rely upon evidence of an illegal purpose.

He who seeks equity must come with clean hands.
Tinsley v Milligan (1993)
Facts: T&M were partners and purchased a property together. M was on benefits and to avoid losing them the property was bought in T's name only.

The relationship broke down and M claimed a beneficial share of the property from T based on her contribution to the purchase price.

House of Lords held that M did not need to rely on her illegal purpose to support the presumption of a resulting trust.
Tribe v Tribe (1996)
Facts: Man tried to avoid debots who had threatened litigation by transferring shares to his son. Litigation never occurred and father tried to reclaim the shares - the son relied on the presumption of advancement.

Held: Father could not rebut the presumption without relying on the evidence of his illegal purpose in the transfer.
Contributions that are not financial can create an interest in the home.

What is the relevant case?
Gissing v Gissing (1971)
What are the 4 requirements for the course to find an express common intention trust?
1. The common intention must be express
2. The intention must be common
3. The common intention must relate ot the acquisition of a share in the beneficial interest of the family home
4. Detrimental reliance
For an 'express common intention trust' the intention must be common to both parties.

What is the relevant case?
Springette v DeFoe (1992)
Lloyds Bank v Rossett (1991)
Facts: A husband and wife purchased a semi-derelict property with the funds provided by the husband's family trust. Title to the property was put in his name only.

Renovation work was commenced with the wife doing some work on the property. Husband took out an overdraft facility for the renovation work which he then defaulted upon.

When possession proceedings began the wife claimed an interest in the property.

Held: The wife's activities in respect of the property were not sufficient evidence on which an inference of common intention could be made. In the absence of an express intention, the husband held the property for his own use and benefit.
In the absence of an expressed common intention as to the beneficial ownership of a property, the common intention can only be inferred by direct financial contribution to the acquisition of the property.

Lloyds Bank v Rossett (1991)
Curley v Parkes (2004)
Facts: C claimed a beneficial interest in a property which was in D's sole name. Initial payment was made by D and the mortage was in D's name.

After the property was acquired, C made a payment of £9k to D which he alleged was to cover some acquisition costs.

Held: For a trust to arise the payments towards the purchase price had to be made at the time of the purchase of the property.
A beneficial interest under a resulting trust can only arise where the payments towards the purchase price are made at the time the property was acquired.
Curley v Parkes (2004)
What are the two categories of common intention constructive trusts set out in Lloyds Bank v Rossett?
1. Express agreement + detrimental reliance

2. Conduct demonstrating common intention - doubtful anything less than financial contributions will do
Renovating the home as detrimental reliance?
Eves v Eves (1975)
Bills, housekeeping and bringing up children as detrimental reliance?
Grant v Edwards (1986)
Bringing up children & supporting partner in business ventures as detrimental reliance?
Hammond v Mitchell (1991)
When quantifying a share in a constructive trust, which case says we should look at the whole course of dealings?
Oxley v Hiscock (2004)
Where a married couple set up home together and the relationship i) breaks down or ii) one party becomes bankrupt, the dispute over respective interests in the family home will be resolved by reference to which statute?
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
An express trust of land is subject to the formalities set out in which statute?
s53(1)(b) Law of Property Act 1925
Facts of Eves v Eves (1975)
Man told his partner that their joint home should be acquired in his name only as she was under the age of 21
Facts of Grant v Edwards (1986)
Man told his partner that their joint home should be transferred into his name only to avoid prejudicing her ongoing divorce proceedings
Bannister v Bannister (1948)
A woman transferred land at less than the market price to her brother in law on the understanding that she could continue to live there rent free for the rest of her life. He then tried to evict her

Held: That there was a constructive trust that enabled her to use the beneficial life interest as promised.
If no discussion occurs, there can be no scope for a constructive trust.

What is the case?
Burns v Burns (1984)
If the 'express bargain constructive trust' prescribes the shares the parties are to take, the quantification of the beneficial interest is straightforward.

What is the case?
Clough v Killey (1996)
For the purposes of finding an implied bargain constructive trust, a direct contribution to the purchase price will allow the courts to find common intention.

What is the case?
Oxley v Hiscock (2004)