Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Tinsley v Milligan [1993] UKHL 3 is an English trusts law case, concerning resulting trusts, the presumption of advancement and illegality. The decision was criticised as "creating capricious results". [1] It has now been overruled by Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42.
A resulting trust is an implied trust that comes into existence by operation of law, where property is transferred to someone who pays nothing for it; and then is implied to hold the property for the benefit of another person. The trust property is said to "result" or revert to the transferor (as an implied settlor).
A resulting trust is not imposed by law against the intentions of the trustee (as is a constructive trust) but gives effect to his presumed intention. Megarry J. in In re Vandervell (No 2) suggests that a resulting trust of type (B) does not depend on intention but operates automatically.
A resulting trust is not imposed by law against the intentions of the trustee (as in a constructive trust) but gives effect to his presumed intention". Alastair Hudson , Professor of Equity and Law at Queen Mary, University of London , argues that Browne-Wilkinson's theory is flawed, primarily because if the trust can not be enforced against ...
Piercing the corporate veil, resulting trust, bare trust, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34 , [2013] 2 AC 415 is a leading UK company law decision of the UK Supreme Court concerning the nature of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil , resulting trusts and equitable proprietary remedies in the ...
It ceases to exist whenever that gap is filled by someone becoming beneficially entitled. As soon as the gap is filled by the creation or declaration of a valid trust, the resulting trust comes to an end. In this case, before the option was exercised, there was a gap in the beneficial ownership. So there was a resulting trust for Mr Vandervell.
Cohabitants, family home, unequal contributions; joint tenancy; no deed of trust or co-ownership; legal constructions; constructive trust Oxley v Hiscock [2004] EWCA 546 is a widely-reported English land law and family law case, concerning cohabitants' constructive trusts and their quantification in a home's equity value.
[6] According to Oposa, the case should be called Oposa with Factoran because his friend Kuya Jun Factoran, a human rights lawyer, actually encouraged to sue the government using his name as the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and to include the dozens of children as real-parties-in-interest, while it was the ...