RT Flashcards
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC (two types of RTs)
Type A: Apparent Gifts
Type B: Failing Trusts
both presumption of RT for A (can be rebutted by evidence)
Apparent Gifts
Where A transfers without valuable consideration his legal estate to B
- A’s intention is questioned
- RT is presumed
- Vandervall v IRC (Lord Upjohn - obiter)
Dyer v Dyer
Purchase in another’s name
- no evidence
- A bought prop in B’s name
- RT back to A
Huntinford v Hobbs
Purchase in another’s name
- A made down payment, B signed mortgage
- RT back to A&B (Even though B never paid any money)
- % DRAWN AT TIME PROPERTY = PURCHASED
Re Vinogradoff
VOLUNTARY TRANSFER
- grandmother transferred bonds to joint names of herself and granddaughter
- RT presumed
- no evidence to rebut
Ways of displacing
show A simply made a gift to B
show any intention inconsistent with a trust
s.60(3)
no presumption of RT if voluntary conveyance of LAND
Lohia v Lohia
first instance said s.60(3) means that presumption of RT is abolished in conveyance of land
(CA didn’t rule on this issue because they agreed it was an intended gift)
Jones v Kernott
SC confirmed Stack v Dowdon - joint names and joint occupation by a married couple or unmarried couple and both are responsible for the mortgage = CICT (NOT RT)
Lasker v Lasker
RT not CICT when family home is actually an investment that one member happens to live in
Presumption of advancement
specific factual circumstances where courts have assumed that the more likely default position is that A intended to make a gift to B
Shepard v Cartwright
A is FATHER of B = presumption of advancement
Lavelle v Lavelle
recent confirmation of Shepard v Cartwright
Tinker v Tinker
A is husband of B = presumption of advancement
Stack v Downdon
A is co-habiting with B = NO presumption of advancement
Abrahams v Trustee of Property
A is wife of B = NO presumption of advancement
No presumption of advancement where
A is a sibling of B
Garett v Wilkinson
A is MOTHER of B = NO presumption of advancement unless A is widowed
Ali v Khan
trying to make presumption of advancement really easily rebuttable
Tinsley v Milligan
if your evidence involves illegality you are barred from raising it as evidence
Les Lab
confirmed Tinsley
- cannot rely on evidence that discloses an illegal purpose
Bilta (UK) v Nazir
Lord Sumption - Tinsley works
Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge - preferred CA approach in Tinsley (weighing policy factors)
Hounga v Allen
supports policy factor method
Tribe v Tribe
If illegal purpose was not carried out, illegality rule does not apply
1) no requirement of genuine repellence
2) party in Q must have voluntarily refrained
3) not enough if he was forced to withdraw
