Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The theoretical justification for resulting trusts was discussed by the Privy Council, in Air Jamaica v Charlton, [7] where Lord Millet said that "Like a constructive trust, a resulting trust arises by operation of law, though unlike a constructive trust it gives effect to intention. But it arises whether or not the transferor intended to ...
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 presumption of a resulting trust was rebutted. If there is no evidence either way of intention to benefit someone with a property transfer, the presumption of a resulting trust is transferred is not absolute. The Law of Property Act 1925 section 60(3) states that a resulting trust does not arise simply with absence of an express intention ...
Personal trust law developed in England at the time of the Crusades, during the 12th and 13th centuries. In medieval English trust law, the settlor was known as the feoffor to uses, while the trustee was known as the feoffee to uses, and the beneficiary was known as the cestui que use, or cestui que trust.
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. I am not convinced that this is right.
Constructive trust, resulting trust, equity Hussey v Palmer [1972] EWCA Civ 1 is an English trusts law case of the Court of Appeal . It concerned the equitable remedy of constructive trusts .
Whilst one response has been to suggest that whether a resulting trust or enforcement of the secret trust is most appropriate remedy is a question for the courts, subsequent cases have typically defined the automatic resulting trust, as in this case, as operating as a matter of law and not a question for the courts, and this should be settled ...
It is sufficient if the trust in question is a resulting trust [12] or constructive trust. [ 13 ] Previously, it was thought that the dishonest assistant would not be liable unless the defaulting trustee was also dishonest or fraudulent, [ 1 ] but Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan confirmed that there is no such requirement in English law.