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).
The council contended that on traditional trust law principles there could be no resulting trust (and therefore no property right, and compound interest) because the council's conscience could not be affected when it could not know (before the judgment in Hazell) that the contract was void. A resulting trust needed to be linked to a deemed ...
Upon the failure of a charitable trust, the gift may be held on resulting trust for the donor, as in Chichester Diocesan Fund v Simpson, [19] or submitted to variation under the cy-près doctrine. As in Simpson v Simpson, [20] if property is given to somebody who is incapable of acting, it will also be held on resulting trust for the donor. [21]
The quo warranto petition against Maria Lourdes Sereno, filed before the Supreme Court of the Philippines, led to the landmark case Republic v. Sereno [note 1] (G. R. No. 237428), [3] [4] [5] which nullified Maria Lourdes Sereno's appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, finding that she never lawfully held the office due to a lack of integrity for failing to file ...
By contrast, Lord Hoffmann characterised the trust as being an express, rather than a resulting trust. Although there may not have been words used to this effect, the solicitor's undertaking that the money should only be used for one purpose so that the money is not at the borrower's free disposal, was sufficient intent to create a trust.
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.
Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines en banc: Full case name; Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr., Rowena S. Disini, Lianne Ivy P. Medina, Janette Toral and Ernesto Sonido, Jr., vs. the Secretary of Justice, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government, the Executive Director of the Information and Communications Technology Office, the Chief of the Philippine National Police ...