presumed RT Flashcards
Taylor v Taylor
it cannot be too highly stressed that this is merely a presumption and must yield to evidence requiring a different conclusion
JC v JHC
Keane J reaffirmed presumption but restricted it to where there is a lack of parties intentions
RF v MF
husband purchased house in joint names of himself & wife on the basis she told him she would resume living with him as they had broken up, she didn’t resume living with him, brought proceedings for half beneficial interest in house, SC rejected claim as husband would not have entered into agreement if she wasn’t going to live w/him, promise integral, pres rebutted
Pecore v Pecore
CAN SC held pres should only apply to minor children and not adult even if they are dependent
Bennett v Bennett
held a person who is not a father of a child but takes on the obligations of one will be considered the same, provided they have taken the obligation on
themselves.
Sekhon v Alissa
daughter bought house conveyed to her in her sole name, mother contributed maj of sum, held considering all circs, no intention to give the daughter entire beneficial interest, pres rebutted
Chattier v Chattier
father couldn’t rebut presumption where he transferred property to his son to avoid regulatory obligations
Re Emery’s Investment
property transferred to evade tax was held to be for an improper purpose and could not rebut presumption
Gascoigne v Gascoigne
property transferred to D’s wife to avoid creditors was held to be for an improper purpose
Parkes v Parkes
presumption not rebutted where a man transferred property in his wife’s name to avoid requiring permission from the land commission because he was not an Irish citizen
Tribe v Tribe
held that where a transferor transfers property for an illegal purpose he can recover the property provided he withdraws from the transaction before the illegal
purpose has wholly or partly performed
Patel v Mirza
transferor transferred money for the purposes of obtaining insider dealing information which is illegal, never received info, sought the return of the
money, court held a wider policy based approach should be taken, the q should be whether the return
of the monies would be against public policy, as no illegality had occurred an order for the return of monies was made.
