***Rebutting the presumption of Resulting Trust - Charles Marshall Pty Ltd v Grimsley(1956) 95 CLR 353When the presumption of resulting trusts arises, evidence can be admitted of the actualintentionof the parties to prove that no such trust was intended Intentionremains paramount in resulting trusts and evidence of the circumstancessurrounding the transfers is admissible, whether it be written or parol evidence. However, it isimportant to note that the evidence must relate to the intention of the parties at the time thatthe interests were created “The presumption can be rebutted or qualified by evidence which manifests anintention to the contrary. Apart from admissions, the only evidence that is relevant andadmissible comprises the acts and declarations of the parties before or at the time of thepurchase … or so immediately thereafter as to constitute a part of the transaction.”Presumption of AdvancementEquity refuses to presume an intention to create a RT and instead presumes that anypurchase or contribution was intended to be a gift by way of advancement– Grey v GreyResulting Trust will not arise when there is evidence of actual intention of the parties.Effect of PoA is to override the presumption of RT, which the result that the legal andequitable states will stay where they lie.
Can be rebutted by the evidence of intention of the contributing parties at the time of thetransfer. If shown that there was no actual intention to confer a beneficial interest on the legaltitle holder, the presumption will not be effective and the normal presumption of RT will apply– Calverley v GreenOnus of rebutting lies on the person asserting an RT, not PoA - Calverley v GreenArises in:1.Transfers from husbands to wivesArises when a husband either provides the PP or makes contributions to the PP of aproperty in which the which is given a legal interestCan arise in regards to fiancée or intended wife – Wirth v Wirth (1956).This is a gift in contemplation of marriage. If the marriage does not occur the giftshould be returned; not returned held on RT: Jenkins v Wynen Joint Purchase of matrimonial home: Trustees of the Property of Cummins (abankrupt) v Cummins oBarrister becomes bankrupt after failing to pay income tax for nearly 45 yearsoHe and his wife purchased a house where Mr Cummins had contributed 23.7%to the PP and Mrs Cummins had contributed 76.3%oHe then transferred his legal and beneficial interest in the matrimonial home tohis wifeoHigh Court: found that transaction was void became main purpose was to avoidcreditorsWhere Husband and wife purchase a matrimonial property it will generally beinferred that the property will be held equally between them irrespective of thecontributions that were madeIf the property has been registered in joint names, equity will not interfere with that JTby creating disproportionate shares reflecting their contributionsSui Mei Huen v Official Receiver for Official Trustee in BankruptcyoFederal Court: Cummins presumption of JT is not irrebuttable; it could bedisplayed by an express or constructive agreement between a husband and wifeconcerning their interests.