100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 13 pages.
Equity 8 Resulting Trusts and Unincorporated Associa-tionsRESULTING TRUSTS; PROPERTY HOLDING BY UNINCORPO-RATED AS-SOCIATIONSRESULTING TRUSTSThe traditional analysis - 2 forms•The 2 distinct categories were established in Vandervell v IRC, 1967, by Megarry J1.AUTOMATIC RT: Where A attempts to dispose of his entire beneficial interest, but fails to do so(but think he has)➡By operation of law, there will be RT back to A. ➡Independent of any intentions or presumptions! 2.PRESUMED RT: Where there is voluntary/gratuitoustransfer of legal estate from A to B. (orwhere A directs his trustee to transfer) ➡Court will look for express intention, by construing transfer document. But if no expressintention, then resulting trust will arise in favour of A - equity presumes what A’s interestmust have been➡This is easily rebutted!•Distinguished by the manner by which they operate. The first is by operation of law - automatic. Thesecond is by intention - rebuttable presumption. •Analysis behind the imposition of RTs. There are 2 schools of thought on how RTs arise: re-sponse to transferor’s actual or presumed intention that transferee should hold property on trust forhim, or response to transferee’s unjust enrichment★Westdeutsche: Lord Browne-Wilkinson thought that it was a response to intention. ➡The main objection to this is that there have been cases where RTs are imposed despiteclear evidence that transferor never thought about it, or even that transferor had clear in-tention he did not want to acquire new equitable beneficial interest in the property (i.e.Vandervell) ➡Also doesn’t explain why unwritten intention to create trust of land can take effect as RTyet can’t be an express trust cos of non-compliance with LPA 1925 s53(1)(c)★Air Jamaica and Twinsectra: Lord Millett thought it was a response to unjust enrichment instead.➡But if taken to logical limits, this suggests that RT will arise wherever C transfers propertybut his intention to benefit D is vitiated by mistake/undue influence/was conditional onsome future event happening which did not materialise. ➡Not true that in all such cases, C should be given proprietary rights and priority - personalrestitutionary remedy should suffice.➡Chambers thinks that this can be resolved by making a distinction on the basis of thetime that has lapsed between receipt and the basis for failure of C’s payment (if failed im-mediately, then D never properly owned the property hence would be ok to give C propri-etary rights)1Abbreviations: C ➔ Claimant