Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law Second Year > Property Law - Resulting Trusts > Flashcards

Property Law - Resulting Trusts Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

What is the overall heading of resulting and constructive trusts?

A

Trusts arising by operation of law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

what statute was modernised in the LPA?

A

Statute of Frauds 1677

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Statute of Frauds 1677 preceded what Act?

A

LPA 1925

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

LPA 1925 s.53(1)(b)

A

Trust of land EVIDENCED in signed writing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What happens if a trust of land is not evidenced in signed writing?

A

Trust is valid but unenforceable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

LPA 1925 s.53(1)(c)

A

Disposition of any subsisting equitable interest need be evidenced in writing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

LPA 1925 s.53(2)

A

No formalities needed for CT/RT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

No formalities needed for CT/RT

A

LPA 1925 s.53(2)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Disposition of any subsisting equitable interest need be evidenced in writing

A

LPA 1925 s.53(1)(c)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Trust of land evidenced by signed writing

A

LPA 1925 s.53(1)(b)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is the outcome of finding an RT/CT?

A

Valuable property protection - right against 3rd, protection from D’s insolvency and asserting equitable interest in new property

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Westdeutsche v Islington LBC on conscience

A

Lord B-W - conscience need be affected with knowledge of circumstances giving rise to a trust in C’s favour before a trust arises

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What judge in that case said that conscience of D needs to be affected with knowledge of the circumstances giving rise to a trust before RT/CT?

A

Lord B-W Westdeutsche v Islington LBC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Independent Trustee Services v GP Noble Trustees on conscience

A

Lloyd LJ stated CT as soon as D acquired property, but no personal liability until knowledge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What judge in what case separated the proprietary and personal aspects of a CT/RT?

A

Lloyd LJ in Independent Trustee Services v GP Noble Trustees

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Independent Trustee Services v GP Noble Trustees, per Lloyd LJ

A

Separated personal and proprietary aspects of CT/RT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Why do H&M believe the conflict between Lloyd J in ITS and Lord B-W in Westdeutsche is overstated?

A

Even under Lord B-W, B has a ‘mere equity’, sharing all the same proprietary attributes of an equitable trust

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Who argues the conflict between Lloyd J in ITS and Lord B-W in Westdeutsche is overstated?

A

H&M

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What is the content of B’s trusteeship under an RT?

A

Bare trust - no duty to invest, just hold the property to account

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

From what Latin term does ‘RT’ come?

A

resalire

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Resalire

A

Jumping back

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What did Birks distinguish between?

A

Trusts resulting in pattern and resulting in origin

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What is a trust resulting in pattern?

A

Whenever money returns to the original transferor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What is a trust resulting in origin?

A

Looking at the underlying reasoning and rationale of the trust, rather than just the mere fact of money returning to the original transferor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Under Birks’ distinction between trusts resulting in pattern and origin, which is an RT?

A

Resulting in origin

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Two types of RTs

A

Automatic gifts and failing trusts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What is another name for an automatic gift RT

A

Presumed RT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Two subcategories of Automatic gifts

A

Voluntary transfer and purchase in another’s name

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Give one case on purchase in another’s name

A

Dyer v Dyer; Huntingford v Hobbs; Prest v Petrodel Resources

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Dyer v Dyer general

A

No evidence whatsoever

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Dyer v Dyer judgment

A

Presumption of RT arises without evidence to the contrary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Basic starting point for presumptions in apparent gifts

A

Dyer v Dyer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

No evidence whatsoever

A

Dyer v Dyer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Huntingford v Hobbs general

A

Downpayment and mortgage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Downpayment and mortgage

A

Huntingford v Hobbs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Huntingford v Hobbs judgment

A

Proportion of RT is the proportions at time of purchase

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Prest v Petrodel Resources general

A

Ancillary relief, flats

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Ancillary relief, flats

A

Prest v Petrodel Resources

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Prest v Petrodel Resources judgment on purchase in another’s name

A

Irrelevant if all of part of the money is provided by D

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Why does Mee argue voluntary transfer apparent gift category should be removed?

A

Absence of evidence to show it wasn’t a gift, so it should be a gift

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Re Vinogradoff general

A

Grandmother, granddaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Prest v Petrodel Resources judgment on voluntary transfer

A

Nothing to rebut equitable presumption that company not intended to acquire beneficial interest

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Re Vinogradoff judgment

A

Personalty - nothing to rebut presumption

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Grandmother, granddaughter

A

Re Vinogradoff

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Hodgson v Marks general

A

Lodger, elderly widow, oral agreement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Lodger, elderly widow, oral agreement

A

Hodgson v Marks

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Hodgson v Marks judgment

A

RT as soon as land transferred to lodger, and purchase stepped into lodger’s shoes upon purchase

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

What case suggested that oral agreements not protected as express trusts under LPA amount to negative intention for RT?

A

Hodgson v Marks

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Lord B-W in Westdeutsche on presumptions

A

They can be ‘easily rebutted’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Two exceptions to presumption of apparent gift

A

Family home context and voluntary conveyance of land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

LPA 1925 s.60(3)

A

RT not implied for voluntary conveyances of land because of lack of express intention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

RT not implied for voluntary conveyances of land because of lack of express intention

A

LPA 1925 s.60(3)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Lohia v Lohia

A

LPA abolished presumption of RT for voluntary land conveyances

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

What case made it clear that LPA abolished presumption of RT for voluntary land conveyances?

A

Lohia v Lohia

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Why can the judgment in Lohia be doubted?

A

First instance decision

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

Prest v Petrodel Resources doubting Lohia

A

SC did not consider s.60(3) at all

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

What case doubts the abolition of presumption of gift in the case of voluntary conveyances of land?

A

Prest v Petrodel Resources

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

What is a positive of LPA s.60(3)?

A

Formalities increase the likelihood that transferor intended to make the conveyance, so presumption not needed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

Midland Bank v Cooke general

A

Less than 7% contribution

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

Less than 7% contribution

A

Midland Bank v Cooke

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

Midland Bank v Cooke judgment

A

Inference of common intention meant married coupled intended equal beneficial shares, not presumption of gift

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

Stack v Dowden, per Hale

A

RTs should be avoided in shared homes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

Stack v Dowden per Neuberger

A

RTs shouldn’t be completely abandoned in domestic contexts, but same outcome

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

Two relevant judges in Stack v Dowden

A

Neuberger and Hale

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

What judge in Stack said RTs should be avoided in shared homes?

A

Hale

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

What judge said RTs shouldn’t be completely abandoned in domestic context?

A

Neuberger

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

Abbott v Abbott per Hale

A

‘Now clear that the CT is generally the more appropriate tool’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

What judge in what case stated it is ‘now clear that the CT is generally the more appropriate tool’?

A

Hale in Abbott v Abbott

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

Jones v Kernott general

A

Joint occupation, mortgage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

Jones v Kernott

A

Stack prevents RT when home in joint names for joint occupation by a couple

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

What case suggested Stack prevents RT when home in joint names for joint occupation by a couple?

A

Jones v Kernott

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
72
Q

What case allowed that the presumption of an RT may still be relevant in other domestic cases?

A

Jones v Kernott

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
73
Q

What case gave four conditions for JT in common law and equity?

A

Jones v Kernott

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
74
Q

Four conditions for JT in common law and equity?

A

Joint names, occupation, couple and mortgage under both names

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
75
Q

Laskar v Laskar general

A

Mother daughter invesmtnet

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
76
Q

Laskar v Laskar judgment

A

Neuberger rejected CT only way in family home, because of investment purpose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
77
Q

Why did Neuberger reject CT in Laskar v Laskar?

A

Investment purpose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
78
Q

Gallarotti v Sebastienelli general

A

Friends, B sole name, larger contributions not made

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
79
Q

Friends, B sole name, larger contributions not made

A

Gallarotti v Sebastienelli

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
80
Q

Gallarotti v Sebastienelli judgment

A

CT gave 25% share, almost exact same as contributions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
81
Q

What two cases show that CT/RT distinction makes little difference to the outcome?

A

Gallarotti v Sebastienelli; stack v Dowden

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
82
Q

What does a presumption of RT require?

A

Absence of evidence and proof of a transfer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
83
Q

Mackowik v Kansas City said what of presumptions?

A

They are ‘bats of the law, flitting in the twilight but disappearing in the sunshine of actual facts’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
84
Q

What case said presumptions are ‘bats of the law, flitting in the twilight but disappearing in the sunshine of actual facts’?

A

Mackowik v Kansas City

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
85
Q

Calverly v Green general

A

1/3 purchase, 2/3 joint mortgage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
86
Q

1/3 purchase, 2/3 joint mortgage

A

Calverly v Green

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
87
Q

Calverly v Green

A

RT at time of purchase was 2/3 to M and 1/3 to W, but lien to M for what W had promised to pay

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
88
Q

What evens out the fact that RTs are determined at the time of purchase?

A

The fact that A an get a lien for whatever B did not pay

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
89
Q

What is a presumption of advancement?

A

Court assumes likely default is a gift to B

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
90
Q

Who sais presumptions of advancement are not true presumptions?

A

Mee

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
91
Q

Who said presumptions of advancement are true presumptions?

A

Chambers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
92
Q

Shephard v Cartwright

A

Loco parentis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
93
Q

Loco parentis

A

Shephard v Cartwright

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
94
Q

Tinker v Tinker

A

Husband/fiancee for presumption of advancement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
95
Q

Husband/fiancee for presumption of advancement

A

Tinker v Tinker

96
Q

Stack v Dowden on presumptions of advancement

A

Cohabitation insufficient for presumption of advancement

97
Q

Cohabitation insufficient for presumption of advancement

A

Stack v Dowden

98
Q

Abrahams v Trustee of Property of Abrahams general

A

Wife insufficient for presumption of advancemnt

99
Q

Wife insufficient for presumption of advancemnt

A

Abrahams v Trustee of Property of Abrahams

100
Q

Pecore v Pecore general

A

Mother and children in Canada allow presumption of advancement

101
Q

Mother and children in Canada allow presumption of advancement

A

Pecore v Pecore

102
Q

What case shows the question of presumption of advancement between mother and children not yet settled?

A

Garrett v Wilkinson

103
Q

Garrett v Wilkinson general

A

Mother and child, England, widow

104
Q

Mother and child, England, widow

A

Garrett v Wilkinson on presumptions of advancement

105
Q

What Act attempted to abolish presumption of advancement?

A

Equality Act 2010 s.199

106
Q

Why do H&M argue not a big deal that EA2010 not in force yet?

A

Court can abolish presumption between spouses and gender bias probably contravenes Article 5 7th Protocol ECHR anyway

107
Q

Who highlight presumption of advancement probably contravenes Article 5 7th Protocol ECHR anyway?

A

H&M

108
Q

What part of the ECHR do H&M suggest presumption of advancement contravenes?

A

Article 5 7th Protocol - equality of spousal rights

109
Q

CPS v Malik general’

A

Very slight intention’

110
Q

CPS v Malik judgment

A

Only need very slight intention to establish intention of advancement anyway

111
Q

what case highlighted how the presumption of advancement is not important as only need very slight intention to establish intention of advancement anyway?

A

CPS v Malik

112
Q

When are presumptions of RT and advancement most important?

A

When evidence on which A wants to rely to establish intent refers to an achieved improper purpose

113
Q

Tinsley v Milligan general

A

Lesbian, social security benefits

114
Q

Lesbian, social security benefits

A

Tinsley v Milligan

115
Q

Tinsley v Milligan judgment

A

If you must rely on illegal purpose to establish presumption, illegality defence blocks the claim

116
Q

What case gave the reliance approach to illegality defence?

A

Tinsley v Milligan

117
Q

What did Lord B-W highlight in Tinsley v Milligan?

A

Fusion of law and equity mean that, if C tries to enforce a property right under illegal transaction, it is irrelevant if the right is legal or equitable

118
Q

When was the illegal purpose relevant in Tinsley?

A

When D was trying to rebut the presumption of an RT

119
Q

What did the Law Commission suggest after Tinsley?

A

More flexible approach needed to illegality defence

120
Q

What was the Law Com’s ‘more flexible approach’ to illegality?

A

Statutory scheme with discretion

121
Q

Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex general

A

Interlocutory injunction, manufacturing illegal

122
Q

Interlocutory injunction, manufacturing illegal

A

Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex

123
Q

Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex per Lord Sumption

A

Approved Tinsley, rejecting public conscience test from LC

124
Q

Why did Sumption reject public conscience test of LC in Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex?

A

Directly inconsistent with Tinsley

125
Q

What is a criticism of the approach in Tinsley?

A

Illegality has nothing to do with the relationship between C and D

126
Q

Tribe v Tribe general

A

Shares to child, worried about claims never arose

127
Q

Shares to child, worried about claims never arose

A

Tribe v Tribe

128
Q

Tribe v Tribe judgment

A

Only prevented from relying on evidence of illegal purpose if achieved

129
Q

What three conditions were there for relying on non-achieved illegal purpose?

A

No need for genuine repentance, need to voluntarily refrain from going through with transaction and not enough that C forced to withdraw from discovery

130
Q

What case gave three conditions for relying on non-achieved illegal purpose?

A

Tribe v Tribe

131
Q

Bilta (UK) v Nazir (No.2) Toulson and Hodge

A

Toulson and Hodge adopted Tinsley CoA approach on public policy for flexibility

132
Q

Bilta (UK) v Nazir (No.2) Sumption

A

Approved Tinsley

133
Q

Bilta (UK) v Nazir (No.2) Neuberger

A

No determination on correct test for illegality defence

134
Q

Why did Neuberger reject construction of the correct illegality defence test in Bilta (UK) v Nazir (No.2)?

A

Not determinative in the case, and little argument on the topic by council

135
Q

Who approved Tinsley in Bilta (UK) v Nazir (No.2)?

A

Sumption?

136
Q

Who adopted Tinsley CoA approach on public consciencee in Bilta (UK) v Nazir (No.2)?

A

Hodge and Toulson

137
Q

Who rejected the construction of correct illegality defence test in Bilta (UK) v Nazir (No.2)?

A

Neuberger

138
Q

What did Law Com criticise about the presumption of advancement in illegality?

A

Ability to recover depends on the presence of a sufficiently special relationship

139
Q

What does a failing trust require?

A

Failed intent to create a trust, absence of intent to benefit T and absence of valid allocation of trust property to anyone else of charitable purpose

140
Q

What is another name for failing trusts?

A

Automatic RTs

141
Q

Automatic RT

A

Failing trust

142
Q

Presumed RT

A

Apparent gift

143
Q

What are the three possible outcomes from a failing trust?

A

Bona vacantia, to T or to S

144
Q

Why does Swaddling argue no RT needed in failing trust cases?

A

Personal liability under unjust enrichment is sufficient

145
Q

What do failing trusts creating RTs allow S to do?

A

Re-declare the trust if that is what she wanted

146
Q

What are the three subcategories of failing trusts?

A

Express trust fails entirely or partially, trust objective achieved with surplus or dissolution of unincorporated association

147
Q

Name at least two cases when an express trust failed entirely/partially

A

Vandervell v IRC; Re Shaw; Re Foord; Barclays Bank v Quistclose; Twinsectra v Yardley; Re Flower’s Settlement Trusts

148
Q

Vandervell v IRC general

A

Professorship, shares to RCS, dividends and OTP

149
Q

Professorship, shares to RCS, dividends and OTP

A

Vandervell v IRC

150
Q

Vandervell v IRC judgment

A

Trust company cannot own shares for itself, so RT back to S

151
Q

Re Shaw general

A

Research into 40-letter alphabet

152
Q

Research into 40-letter alphabet

A

Re Shaw

153
Q

Re Shaw judgment

A

Private purpose failed, but not for T so RT

154
Q

Re Foord general

A

Sister absolutely, widow annuity

155
Q

Sister absolutely, widow annuity

A

Re Foord

156
Q

Barclays Bank v Quistclose general

A

Dividends to shareholders

157
Q

Dividends to shareholders

A

Barclays Bank v Quistclose

158
Q

Barclays Bank v Quistclose judgment

A

RT on failure of purpose trust, primary and secondary framework

159
Q

What case and judge reinterpreted Barclas Bank v Quistclose?

A

Lord Millett in Twinsectra v Yardley

160
Q

Twinsectra v Yardley general

A

Money for house

161
Q

Twinsectra v Yardley judgment

A

Lord Millett reinterpreted Quistclose - immediate RT with power to apply money for purpose

162
Q

Re Flower’s Settlement Trusts general

A

Doctrine of acceleration

163
Q

Re Flower’s Settlement Trusts judgment

A

Doctrine of acceleration blocks RT

164
Q

What case showed Doctrine of acceleration blocks RT?

A

Re Flower’s Settlement Trusts

165
Q

What two cases show failure of a trust is a fact-specific question?

A

Re Abbott and Re Osoba

166
Q

Re Abbott general

A

Deaf and mute women

167
Q

Re Abbott judgment

A

Trust for them only whilst surviving, then RT

168
Q

Re Osoba general

A

Widow, mother and daughter

169
Q

Widow, mother and daughter

A

Re Osoba

170
Q

Re Osoba judgment

A

For benefit of all as JTs, so whole interest disposed of by terms of initial transfer

171
Q

Deaf and mute

A

Re Abbott

172
Q

Two cases showing trust objectives achieved, with surplus

A

Davis v Richard & Wellington; Air Jamaica

173
Q

Davis v Richard & Wellington general

A

Pension scheme, surplus from employer and employee contribution

174
Q

Pension scheme, surplus from employer and employee contribution

A

Davis v Richard & Wellington

175
Q

Davis v Richard & Wellington judgment

A

Employer contribution RT but employee bona vacantia

176
Q

Why did employee contributions in Davis v Richard & Wellington go on bona vacant?

A

Unworkable RT and gave more than legislature intended when imposing statutory limits

177
Q

Why was the RT considered unworkable if allowed RT to employer’s contributions in Davis v Richard & Wellington?

A

Different value of benefits to each employee

178
Q

Air Jamaica general

A

Privatised company, pension fund, expressly no RT

179
Q

Privatised company, pension fund, expressly no RT

A

Air Jamaica

180
Q

Air jamaica judgment

A

RT because operation of law, so trust fund instrument irrelevant

181
Q

What did Millett find unconvincing about Davis v Richard in Air Jamaica?

A

RT unworkable, because just pro rata distribution

182
Q

What did Millett suggest about justifications for RT in Air Jamaica?

A

Retention theory wrong, because RT clearly did not respond to A’s positive intention

183
Q

Name at least two cases on dissolution of unincorporated associations for failing trusts

A

Re West Sussex; Re Bucks; Hanchett-Stamford v AG

184
Q

Re West Sussex general

A

Fund for widows and orphans, raffle

185
Q

Fund for widows and orphans, raffle

A

Re West Sussex

186
Q

Re West Sussex judgment

A

Donations and legacies on RT

187
Q

Re Bucks general

A

Widows and orphans, no rules for winding up

188
Q

Re Bucks judgment

A

Doubted Re West Sussex, paying proper attention to primacy of members’ contracts for beneficial interest

189
Q

What case doubted Re West Sussex?

A

Re Bucks

190
Q

Widows and orphans, no rules for winding up

A

Re Bucks

191
Q

Hanchett-Stamford v AG general

A

Anti-vivisection defence league, wife

192
Q

Hanchett-Stamford v AG judgment

A

Property vested absolutely in wife as last surviving member

193
Q

What two things did Lewison J reject in Hanchett-Stamford v AG

A

Charitable purpose of association, and that property went on bona vacantia

194
Q

What case suggested in obiter that if there is only one surviving member of a UA, property goes on bona vacantia?

A

Re Bucks

195
Q

Supporter of negative intention theory

A

Chambers

196
Q

Supporter of liberalism and autonomy justification of RTs

A

Gardener

197
Q

Who called apparent gifts and failing trusts automatic/presumed RTs?

A

Megarry VC in Vandervell v iRC

198
Q

Megarry VC in Vandervell v iRC

A

Called apparent gifts presumed RTs and failing trusts automatic RTs

199
Q

Supporter of unjust enrichment justification/alternative for RTs

A

Chambers

200
Q

Supporter of positive intention theory for apparent gifts

A

Mee

201
Q

Supporter for apparent gifts RTs responding to A’s declaration of trust

A

Swadling

202
Q

Who said failing trusts ‘defy legal analysis’?

A

Swadling

203
Q

What judge in what case highlighted how the retention theory is incorrect because there is no split of legal and equitable title prior to a trust?

A

Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Westdeutsche Bank v Islington

204
Q

Why did Megarry VC in Vandervell call FTs automatic?

A

RT happens upon the trust failing, automatically

205
Q

Why did Megarry VC in Vandervell call AGs presumed?

A

Equity is cynical that A intended a gift without intention

206
Q

What judge in what case said that all RTs respond to A’s common intent, and RT not imposed against B’s intention

A

Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Westdeutsche Bank v Islington

207
Q

Why was Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s view on common intention RTs in Westdeutsche Bank v Islington problematic?

A

He required common intent for the trust, but focus on B’s intent when asking if against his intent to impose the trust

208
Q

What case casts doubt on the common intention theory of RTs and why?

A

Re Vinogradoff - minor can’t form an intent

209
Q

What case first recognised UE in England?

A

Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale

210
Q

Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale

A

First recognised UE in England

211
Q

In what decade was UE first recognised in England

A

1990

212
Q

What are the two issues with UE justification of RT?

A

Not all UE claims result in proprietary remedies, but personal ones, and ‘unjust factor’ can’t be present if basis of the theory is a lack of evidence

213
Q

What factor needs to be present for UE claim?

A

‘Unjust’

214
Q

Why can there be no unjust factor in RT cases?

A

Lack of evidence bases the RT presumptions, so no ‘unjust factor’

215
Q

Who argues AGs shouldn’t be RTs at all, as they are simply a state of affairs?

A

Mee

216
Q

Re Vinogradoff on the positive intention theory by Mee

A

No intention at all of what Grandmother wanted, so no positive intention to declare for herself

217
Q

What academic essentially aligns RTs with express trusts?

A

Swadling

218
Q

What are the two problems with Swadling’s declaratory analysis of AGs?

A

RTs arise for lack of proper trust declaration, and thus are NOT express trusts, and s.53(2) LPA explicitly excluded RT and CTs from formalities

219
Q

What, textually, is hard to explain in LPA is RTs arise on presumption of A’s intent to declare a trust for himself?

A

S.53(2) LPA exclusion of RTs and CTs from formalities

220
Q

What is a positive of Chambers’ UE analysis of RTs?

A

Identifies common underlying basis of both AG and FT - A’s negative intention

221
Q

In what case was the UE justification rejected?

A

Westdeutsche v Islington LBC

222
Q

Who said Chambers’ UE theory ‘proves too much’?

A

H&M

223
Q

Why did H&M think Chambers’ UE theory ‘proves too much’?

A

Causes RTs to arise WHENEVR A transfers property to B with vitiated intention

224
Q

What is the immediate issue with Lord B-W’s common intention justification for FTs in Westdeutsche?

A

RT arises even if A did not intend to get the beneficial interest back

225
Q

What academic highlighted to offer support for common intention analysis of FT, how RT is probably what an ‘abstract class’ of S’s would likely prefer?

A

Mee

226
Q

Mee, offering support for common intention analysis of FT

A

RT is probably what an ‘abstract class’ of S’s would likely prefer

227
Q

What academic explains FTs through negative intention?

A

Mee

228
Q

How does Mee explain FTs through negative intention?

A

S intends to create a trust, but no intent to benefit B or anyone else

229
Q

Two criticisms of Mee’s negative intention justification for FTs

A

Intention unnecessary if RT arises upon UA dissolution, and S may intend to benefit SOMEONE, but fails on this point/there is surplus

230
Q

What case suggested FTs respond to A’s positive intention to retain the beneficial interest?

A

Re Foord

231
Q

Re Foord general

A

Sister, wife, annuity

232
Q

Sister, wife, annuity

A

Re Foord

233
Q

What showed S did not intend to retain the beneficial interest in Re Foord?

A

‘Absolutely’ by lay person, informal address and non-income producing property as part of gift

234
Q

Who argued Chambers, in his UE analysis, blurs the distinction between FT and UE?

A

Mee

235
Q

How does Mee believe Chambers blurs the distinction between FT and UE?

A

FT is more than UE - absence to benefit B when A intended B to take as T can only mean A did intend to create a trust, just not to benefit B

236
Q

What case casts doubt on Mee’s positive intention theory of AGs and how?

A

Vandervell v IRC - A may not want to benefit B, but he also clearly didn’t mean to declare a trust for himself

Law Second Year (62 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions