Back
 OALibJ  Vol.1 No.5 , August 2014
Understanding the Nature of the Presumption of Resulting Trusts
Abstract: The nature of the presumption of a resulting trust has generated a controversy, which has created two schools of thoughts. Both schools of thoughts claim that resulting trusts give effect to the presumed intention, positive or negative. But in this paper, I take on a quite different view of point that whether a lack of intent to benefit or a positive intent to create a trust is not related with the presumption of the resulting trusts, which, I believe, will make it interesting to general readers. Further, this paper thinks the presumption of a resulting trust as circumstances or facts based on presumption, legal presumption and thinks that it can be rebutted by evidential circumstances, which are helpful to ascertain the grounds for imposing a resulting trust. In a word, exploring the nature of the presumption of resulting trusts will aid in the understanding the grounds upon which a resulting trust is imposed. This article proceeds under four parts: the role of intention in the presumption of the resulting trusts; the circumstances or facts based on presumption; a legal presumption; rebutting by evidential circumstances.
Cite this paper: Chen, X. (2014) Understanding the Nature of the Presumption of Resulting Trusts. Open Access Library Journal, 1, 1-16. doi: 10.4236/oalib.1100593.
References

[1]   See Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC (1996) AC 669,708. See Swadling, “A Hard Look at Hodgson v Marks”, Rickett and Grantham, “Resulting Trusts—A Rather Limited Doctrine”, Payne, “Quistclose and Resulting Trusts”. Peter Birks and Francis Rose, Restitution and Equity, Vol. I, Mansfield Press, 4.

[2]   Birks and Chambers, etc. (1997) Hold This Restitutionary View. “All Resulting Trusts Come into Being Because the Provider of Property Did Not Intend to Benefit the Recipient.” See Chamber, R., Resulting Trusts, Oxford.

[3]   Ramjohn, M. (1995) Sourcebook on Law of Trusts. Cavendish Publishing Limited, London, 201.

[4]   Ramjohn, M. (1995) Sourcebook on Law of Trusts. Cavendish Publishing Limited, London, 241.

[5]   Swadling, W. (1996) A New Role for Resulting Trusts. Legal Studies, 16, 110-131.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.1996.tb00402.x

[6]   Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council (1996) AC 669 AT 708.

[7]   Standing v Bowring (1885) 31 Ch D 282 at 289.

[8]   Hudson, A. (1999) Principles of Equity and Trusts. Cavendish Publishing Limited, London, 53-54.

[9]   Penner, J.E. (2008) The Law of Trusts. 6th edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 87.

[10]   Swadling, W. (2008) Explaining Resulting Trusts, LQR 72-80.

[11]   (1908) The Venture. 218.

[12]   (1908) The Venture. p. 230.

[13]   Mowbray, W.J. (1964) Lewin on Trusts. 16th Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 8.

[14]   (2000) Trusts Which Are Inferred from Doubtful Words, for Example, (Sometimes Called “Precatory Trusts”) Are Therefore Express, Declared Trusts. In Such Circumstance, the Court Construes the Evidence Available and Concludes That the Settler Sufficiently Manifested an Intention to Declare the Trust. In: Birks, P. and Rose, F., Eds., Restitution and Equity, Vol. 1, Mansfield Press, Toronto, 8.

[15]   Pettitt v Pettitt (1970) AC 777,823; Murphy and Deane JJ. Further the Discussion In Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242,264-266.

[16]   Clements, R. and Abass, A. (2011) Equity and Trusts. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 329.

[17]   Milligan, T. (1994) 1 AC 371.

[18]   Penner, J.E. (2008) The Law of Trusts. 6th Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 90.

[19]   Dyer v Dyer (1788) EWHC Exch J8, 2 Cox Eq Cas 92.

[20]   Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners (1967) 2 AC 291.

[21]   Panesar, S. (2010) Exploring Equity and Trusts. Pearson Education, Limited, Upper Saddle River, 277.

[22]   Chambers, R. (1997) Resulting Trusts. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 34.

[23]   Chambers, R. (1997) Resulting Trusts. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 35.

[24]   Simpson, E. (2000) On the Nature of Resulting Trusts: The Vandervell Litigation Revisited. In: Birks, P. and Rose, F., Eds., Restitution and Equity, Vol. 1, Mansfield Press, Toronto, 21.

[25]   Vandervell v IRC (1967) 2AC 313.

[26]   Vandervell v IRC (1967) 2AC 329.

[27]   Chambers, R. (1997) Resulting Trusts. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 52.

[28]   Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC (1996) AC 706.

[29]   Taylor, A. (2000) Principles of Evidence. Cavendish Publishing Limited, London, 39.

[30]   Nokes, G.D. (1967) An Introduction to Evidence. 4th Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 74.

[31]   Murphy, P. and Glover, R. (2011) Murphy on Evidence. 12th Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 686-687.

[32]   Durston, G. (2011) Evidence Text and Materials. 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 143.

[33]   Phipson (2005) On Evidence. 16th Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 136.

[34]   Murphy, P. and Glover, R. (2011) Murphy on Evidence. 12th Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 73.

[35]   Cooper, S., Murphy, P. and Beaumont, J. (1997) Cases and Materials on Evidence. 4th Edition, Blackstone Press Limited, Bondi Junction, 72.

[36]   Phipson (2005) On Evidence. 16th Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London, p. 136.

[37]   Thomas, G. and Hudson, A. (2010) The Law of Trusts. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 728.

[38]   Haley, M. and McMurtry, L. (2011) Equity & Trusts. Sweet & Maxwell, London, 297-306.

[39]   Swadling, W. (2008) Explaining Resulting Trusts. Law Quarterly Review.

[40]   Bagshaw, R. and Cross, R. (1996) Outline of the Law of Evidence. Butterworths, London, 37.

[41]   Gissing v Gissing (1971) AC 886 at 909.

[42]   The Presumption Will Be Abolished by s 199 of the Equality Act 2010 for All Transfers etc. Made after the Section Comes into Force.

[43]   The Presumption Which Runs Contrary to the Presumption of a Resulting Trust Is That People in Some Certain Relationships Will Be Presumed, Subject to the Presentation of Evidence to the Contrary, to Have Made an Outright Gift to the Recipient. Therefore, in Such Situations There Will Be No Presumption of a Resulting Trust Arising in Favour of the Grantor. If the Transfer Was Made before s 199 of the Equality Act 2010 Comes into Force.

[44]   Warner-Reed, E. (2011) Equity and Trusts. Pearson Education Limited, Upper Saddle River, 176.

[45]   Haley, M. and McMurtry, L. (2011) Equity & Trusts. 3rd Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 309.

[46]   Duddington, J. (2006) Essentials of Equity and Trust Law. Pearson Education Limited, Upper Saddle River, 159.

[47]   Edwards, R. and Stockwell, N. (2011) Trusts and Equity. 10th Edition, Pearson Education Limited, Upper Saddle River, 253.

 
 
Top