CTs 2: Rochefoucauld v Boustead and Pallant v Morgan Flashcards
s.53(1)(b) LPA 1925
This provides that a declaration of trust respecting land or any interest in land must be manifested by some signed writing - so needs to be evidenced by some signed writing.
Rochefoucauld v Boustead
Countees owned estates in Sri Lanka, subject to a mortgage in favour of a Dutch company. Company forced sale of property at auction due to A’s failure to make repayments. A agreed with B that if B was successful at auction, then A would not enforce her equity of redemption, but B later went against agreement and sold the property.
Court held that a trust can be evidenced by oral evidence in order to prevent fraud - B cannot rely on A not complying with s.9 Wills Act 1837 to deny their own fraud
.Bannister v Bannister
Mrs Bannister owned two cottages and transferred them to brother in law on oral agreement that she would remain rent free for life, but he tried to kick her out.
Court held that the property was held on CT for Mrs Bannister - R v B prevented Mr Bannister from relying on s.53(1)(b) requirements not being complied with in order to go back on their agreement for a trust
Hodgson v Marks
Elderly woman transferred her house to lodger on oral agreement that he would hold the property on trust for her - court held that R v B prevented D from going back on the oral agreement and thus there was a valid trust for the property in C’s favour evidenced by an oral agreement.
So R v B applies where A transfers the property to B on an oral agreement for B to hold on trust for A.
Rochefoucauld v Boustead - MORE THAN STARTED
R v B also applies to mean that A gets more than they started with under a CT - countess only started with an equity of redemption, but court held that she ended up with the entire beneficial interest due to B’s attempt to rely on lack of compliance with trust declaration of land formalities
Smith v Matthews
R v B does NOT apply where A declares himself a trustee - i.e. it does not apply to self-declaration of trusts (where A declares himself as a trustee). It does not apply here because there is no fraud being perpetrated because there is no other party going back on their agreement here.
Birch v Blagrave
Where A transfers property to B, but B does not promise to hold the property on trust for A in an oral agreement, then R v B does NOT apply - no CT here under R v B, but instead dealt with under a RT analysis, so presumption of RT would apply in the absence of evidence for apparent gift/voluntary conveyance of land.
De Bruyne v De Bruyne
Discretionary trust in favour of many beneficiaries, who reached an agreement with one of the beneficiaries, whereby they would get T to exercise his discretion in favour of the one B so that B would hold this money on trust for his children - but he gave beneficial interest to his wife, C.
CA held that there was a CT in favour of his children - so R v B DOES apply to third party cases, and prevents B from going back on an oral agreement for trusts over land or interests in land where they have orally promised to hold for a third party.
Pallant v Morgan
A and B were both potential bidders at an auction - A agreed to stay out of the bidding so that B could win, and in exchange B promised to sell part of the land to A. However, when B acquired the land he tried to go back on the agreement and keep it for himself.
Harman J held that when B acquired the land, he held it on CT for himself and A as JTs on the condition that A pays for his share of the land, as they agreed. This was because B obtained an advantage in A staying out of the bidding, as if A’s agent had bid then B would have had to pay more money than he did to acquire the property.
Banner Homes v Luff
Chadwick LJ set out 5 elements for a successful Pallant v Morgan claim:
1) Agreement must PRECEDE acquisition of property
2) Agreement does not needs to be contractually enforceable
3) Agreement must contemplate that if B succeeds in getting the land, A gets SOME interest in the land
4) B must obtain a benefit/A must suffer a detriment through A refraining from bidding
5) A’s reliance must make it inequitable for B to ignore the agreement and keep the property solely for himself
Time Products v Combined English Stores
CT mirrors the exact terms of the agreement - CT compelled the parties to have the property held in equal shares on trust for them both, as this is the agreement they made prior to B’s acquistion
Holiday Inns v Broadhead
A wanted to enter into joint venture with B. B acquired option to purchase site - A then spent money on getting planning permission, which increased the value of the land. But A then went back on agreement and bought property solely itself.
Megarry J held that even though there was NOT A clear agreement as to the shares of the beneficial interest in the land, there was still a CT under P v M. A and B received equal shares on trust since it was better to have this than not uphold the agreement at all.
So even if there is not a clear share of the beneficial interests agreed before the acquisition, court can still find CT under P v M - equal shares of beneficial interests where equitable to find this.
Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row
HL argued that Holiday Inns v Broadhead WAS an application of Pallant v Morgan doctrine and therefore is a CT.
However, under closer analysis it arguably appears that the 4th element of detriment/advantage was not met - focus on acquisition of land. Liew argues that the acquisition of land for B occurred when they acquired the option to purchase, not when they exercised the right - B has a beneficial interest in land when they get the option.
Problem for P V M is that if B acquires the interest then, A’s planning permission work occurred after B acquired the land - so Liew says it should be regarded as proprietary estoppel, rather than P v M.
