Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The name resulting trust comes from the Latin resultare, meaning to spring back.It was defined in Re Sick and Funeral Society of St John's Sunday School, Golcar, [2] where Megarry VC stated that "A resulting trust is essentially a property concept; any property that a man does not effectually dispose of remains his own". [1]
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 ...
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 .
Fowkes v Pascoe (1875) LR 10 Ch App 343 is an English trusts law case, ... James LJ held that although a presumption of a resulting trust applied, it was rebutted on ...
Air Jamaica Ltd v Charlton [1999], UKPC 20, is an English trusts law case concerning resulting trusts. In this case, Lord Millett expressed the view that a resulting trust arises due to the absence of intention to benefit a recipient of money.
The Court of Appeal held that the father could demand return of the shares, because his illegal scheme had not in fact been carried into effect. Millett LJ said it was true that an illegal purpose cannot rebut the presumption of advancement, but because the illegal purpose had not been carried out, the father was not precluded of pleading the purpose to claim a resulting trust.