Constructive Trusts Flashcards
Halifax v Thomas
Orthodox analysis of institutional CT which gives rise to CT according to context
Eves v Eves
Beginning of the CT for justice and good conscience led by Denning MR
Westdeutsche Landesbank
Remedial CT which is recognised in other jurisdictions but not yet in England - different to institutional CT
Foskett v McKeown
Constructive trust as remedy following misappropriation of property in which the C has a equitable interest when that property has been misappropriated and similar or the same property can be applied
Chase Manhattan Bank
Westdeutsche
The fact that money has been transferred is insufficient for the C to keep their proprietary interest, there needs to be an event which reveals such a mistake as to create the interest – once the recipient knows, they hold on CT
Boardman v Phipps
Unconscionable retention of trust profits – as soon as conscience is affected there is a CT but the conscience must be affected and it must be before insolvency per Westdeutsche
Hudson
‘Authorisation’ of receiving profits in a fiduciary capacity per Phipps - here he was not a CT as the refusal of the company to pursue the opportunity was an authorisation
Shalson v Russo
Costello v CC of Derbyshire
Issues with legal title not being transferred when money has been stolen
The thief does indeed have rights as, if a 3rd party steals from thief, he can assert his property rights
Re Goldcorp Exchange
The natural limit at which the D’s conscience has been affected is when the property that they received, the proceeds of, the substitute of – has been lost - therefore tied up with tracing
Lonrho v Fayed (CT)
El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings (RT)
Whether the rescinded property from a contract is held on RT or CT is irrelevant concerning 3rd parties as this is a ‘mere’ equity and if a 3rd party has an equitable interest in the property for value without notice of C’s interest then this will be a bar to rescission
Pitt v Holt
Equitable jurisdiction where gifts or dispositions of trusts has been made by mistake which consequently go on RT or CT back to the transferor - need 1. mistake of donor, 2. the mistake must have been relevant, 3. the mistake must be of such gravity so as to make unjust for the donee to retain the property
Lady Hood of Avalon v McKinnon
A mistake can be of legal effect or of fact – must be of sufficient materiality to the mistake
Blyth v Fladgate
Fiduciaries de son tort - where an unappointed third party intermeddles – such people will be treated as if they were properly appointed and will be subject to fiduciary duties in the ordinary way
James v Williams
A person who takes control without appointment will be treated as an express trustee and he who acts as a fiduciary will hold on constructive trust for the principal
Ottaway v Norman
Where property is transferred to be used for a particular person and the D breaches that undertaking, equity may require that the D will hold on trust for the person who the trust was intended to benefit on CT
Binion v Evans
Where a purchaser buys land and agrees to allow the rights of a third party to continue (esp. licences) then they will hold the property subject to CT for the 3rd party
Re Cleaver
Mutual wills - CT here relies on there being a legally binding contract not to revoke their wills
Ollins v Walters
An immediate constructive trust is preferable when mutual wills are in play as the beneficial interest of the 3rd party, if they die before the survivor, will go to his or her estate
Pennington v Waine
Perfecting an imperfect gift
Re DWS
Not benefiting from the proceeds of a crime - a CT should have been applied here to avoid injustice and the estate goes to those who were to benefit from the estate but not the criminal/fraudster
Shaw v Foster
Contracts for the sale of land - strong implication of CT but used in limited circumstances and only for the land, nothing else
AG for Hong Kong v Reid (Priv. C)
Sinclair v Versailles
Holding property received in breach of fiduciary duty on CT for C
Rejected read in S by saying that it was just profits made which were on CT
Paragon Finance v Thakerar
Those CTs such as sale of land which do not involve unconscionability are best being analysed as implied trusts and the CT is best being restricted to actual or potential unconscionable behaviour
