100%(3)3 out of 3 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 28 - 34 out of 75 pages.
Wilkins v Wilkins  VSC 100•Australian Building & Technical Solutions Pty Ltd v Boumelhem  NSWSC 460 •Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538
Topic 12 – Resulting TrustsEquity & Trusts 70517Dearing v Dearing  NSWSC 1394 per Rein J •Tyrone Dearing – registered proprietor of property at Bundeena – claimed needed to be in his name to obtain mortgage.•Kay Dearing – mother – provided $269,000 & claimed RT.•Nelson v Nelson – presumption of advancement can apply as between mother & adult child.•“In my view the presumption of advancement has here been rebutted. I am not persuaded that the plaintiff intended to make a gift of the proceeds of the sale of her only real asset and to divest purchased from the proceeds. It follows that the plaintiff has made out her case for a resulting trust and it was agreed that if I were to so find, there would be no need to consider the plaintiff’s alternative contention that there ought be declared a constructive trust.”
Topic 12 – Resulting TrustsEquity & Trusts 70517Wilkins v Wilkins  VSC 100 per Kaye J•In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a registered proprietor of real estate is presumed to own the equitable interest in it. •However, where a person purchases property, and places that property in the name of someone else, the law presumes that that person holds the property on a RT for the purchaser who paid the cost of acquisition of it. •The presumption of a RT may be rebutted by showing that there is a relationship between the parties which gives rise to a countervailing presumption known as the “presumption of advancement”. •In such a case, the presumption of the RT is, in effect, nullified.
Topic 12 – Resulting TrustsEquity & Trusts 70517C:PRESUMED RESULTING TRUSTSRebuttal of presumptions •The presumptions can be rebutted by evidence that the intention at the relevant time was not to make a gift: eg Black Uhlans Inc v New South Wales Crime Commission NSWSC 1060•Evidence of acts or declarations of the parties before or at the time of purchase, or so immediately thereafter as to constitute a part of the transaction: will be admissible for and against the actor or declarant.•Subsequent acts and declarations: admissible only against a person, not in favour: Shepard v. Cartwright 3 All ER 649;  AC 431
Topic 12 – Resulting TrustsEquity & Trusts 70517D :QUISTCLOSE TRUSTS - A SPECIES OF RESULTING TRUST(or not?) Barclays Bank v Quistclose Investments Ltd AC 567NSW cases considering Quistclose trust:•Shepard (in his capacity as registered trustee of the bankrupt estate of Wallman) v Mladenis  NSWSC 1431•George v Webb NSWSC 1608•Raulfs v Fishy Bite Pty ltd NSWCA 135
Topic 12 – Resulting TrustsEquity & Trusts 70517Barclays Bank v Quistclose Investments Ltd AC 567•RR was indebted to BB & needed £209,719 to pay dividends to shareholders (serious financial difficulties).