RTs & CTs - cases

Question 1

PRTs Dyer v Dyer (1788)

Answer 1

F provided all purchase money for premises granted to him and older son D, in his will left ‘all his interest’ to younger son P, who ag that premises held on RT by D for F and now him

=> held (exchequer) : presumption of advancement bcs D = F’s son -> no PRT, presumption rebutted bcs presumption of advancement

Question 2

PRTs Fowkes v Pascoe (1875)

Answer 2

Mrs B brought stocks in the name of herself and son of her daughter in law (DIL) + left him pt of the residue of her estate – issue whether gift or held on RT

=> CA held that presumption of RT rebutted by (small) evidence, transferred as gift (but no presumption of advancement bcs not in loco parentis)

Question 3

PRTs The Venture (1908)

Answer 3

A had contributed abt half of purchase price of yacht brought by his brother, yacht was sold, A alleged that half held on trust for him

=> CA held that presumption of RT not displaced by any counter-evidence so A entitled to his share of proceeds of sale of yacht

Question 4

PRTs Re Vinogradoff

Answer 4

A (testatrix) transferred £800 in the name of herself and B (her granddaughter, then aged 4)

=> HC found that money held on RT for A

=> sightly confusing case bcs B v young = can’t really have been intended to be a trustee

Question 5

PRTs Shephard v Cartwright

Answer 5

Father purchased shares and registered them in name of his children, saved proceeds in bank acc for them, later made them sign doc authorizing him to use the money and dissipated it

=> HL held that shares & money belonged to children, evidence brought to rebut presumption of advancement not admissible

Question 6

PRTs Lohia v Lohia

Answer 6

A provided pt of purchase money for house registered in his father’s name (transfer under family arrangement?), B = A’s brother sought occupation on F’s death, A claimed that pt of house held on RT for him

=> CA held that no RT bcs evidence of ‘family arrangement’ under which A transferred house to F = rebutted presumption of RT

=> Mummery LJ Obiter remarks on s60(3) LPA 1925: suggests it does abolish presumption of RT in cases of voluntary conveyance of title to land, although doesn’t rule out the possibility of there being a RT in those circumstances, just shifts burden on person claiming there is one to show it

=>** PRT would no longer apply to family home case following Stack v Dowden anyway

Question 7

PRTs National Crime Agency v Dong

Answer 7

D transferred house in name of a friend but continued living there, NCA sued D for unpaid taxes and ag that house held for D on PRT, D ag that presº of RT abolished by s60(3) LPA

=>HC held that house held on PRT for D, presumption not abolished by s60(3) LPA 1925
- aim of s60(3) merely removing ‘technicality’ / requirement of specific formula of words for conveyance to be effective
- if draftsman had intended to abolish presumptions, would’ve done so in clearer words + no good reason to abolish presumption in relation to land but not chattels

Question 8

ARTs Vandervell v IRC

Answer 8

V had shares transferred to RCS on condition that RCS grant T (trustee company) option to purchase them later – issue abt for whom T held the option (and the shares once exercised)

=> HL held that option held on (automatic) RT for V bcs failing trust (lack of objects)

Question 9

ARTs Hodgson v Marks

Answer 9

A (old lady) transferred title to her house to her lodger (B) + orally agreed that BI would remain in A – B sold house to D, issue whether D held on trust for A

=> CA held in favour of A, D1 held house on trust : express trust failed bcs s53(1)(b) (DOT of land not in writing) BUT “just the occasion for the implication of a resulting trust” bcs clearly no intention to make a gift

Question 10

ARTs Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentral v Islington LBC

Answer 10

C paid money to D under contract which turned out to be void, claimed that money held by D on RT for C

=> Held (HL) : money not held on RT bcs didn’t fit in either category of RT + undersirable extention of the law on RTs (giving C proprietary interest in money paid under contract not good)

=> the two types of RTs (Lord BW)
* Type A RTs = gratuitous transfer or contribution to purchase price
* Type B RTs = failing trusts / trusts that don’t exhaust BI

Question 11

ARTs Air Jamaica Ltd v Charleton

Answer 11

Pension fund (trust) created by company became invalid (rule ag perpetuities?) - question of who got surplus

=>PC : surplus held on (A)RT for contributors (employers and employees), in proportion to their contribution

Question 12

ICTs - Re Rose

Answer 12

S did everything in his power to complete a transfer, failed bcs pb of registration not withing his control

=> Court gave effect to transfer w/ CT

Question 13

ICTs - Lysaght v Edwards

Answer 13

= an authority for VPCT

=> “the moment you have a valid contract for sale the vendor becomes in equity a trustee for the purchaser of the estate sold, and the beneficial ownership passes to the purchaser” – Sir Jessel MR

Question 14

ICTs - Bannister v Bannister

Answer 14

D sold cottages to C at reduced price, C orally promised she could stay in them for life

=> CA held that although no express trust bcs lack of writing, cottages were held on CT for D bcs s53(1)(b) not to be used as an instrument of fraud

Question 15

ICTs - Pallant v Morgan

Answer 15

C and D both interested in buying land sold in an auction => their agents agreed that C would not bid for a particular plot, in return for D promising to sell pt of it to C => D was able to acquire the land at a lower price

=> Held (HC) : D held the land on CT for himself and C jointly

Question 16

ICTs - Foskett v McKeown

Answer 16

Main point (here - acc to Sw) : where property has been transferred in breach of trust, recipient will hold the property on CT for the objects of the trust unless he is a BFP for value without notice of the breach

Question 17

ICTs - Chase Manhattan Bank v Israel British Bank

Answer 17

P bank paid $2m to D bank twice, by mistake. D bank went bankrupt – P sought to trace & recover the sum paid by mistake.

=> HC held in favour of P, “a person who pays money to another under a factual mistake retains an equitable property in it, and the conscience of that other is subjected to a fiduciary duty respect his proprietary right”

/!\ criticized in Westdeutsche

Question 18

ICTs - Westdeustche

Answer 18

D entered into contract w/ C, contract in fact void, C ag that money paid to D under the contract was held by D on RT for C

=>HL held that money not held on trust for C, neither RT nor CT

=> Lord BW criticized reasoning in Chase Manhattan: mistaken payment without more doesn’t give rise to CT – but CT may arise where D has knowledge of mistake, so decision ok

Question 19

RT & RCT - Hussey v Palmer

Answer 19

C = elderly widow invited to live w/ daughter and son-in-law, paid for building an extension w/ bedroom for her – had to leave bcs family arguments, claimed that money either lent or held on trust for her

=> CA held that money held on RT or (per Lord Denning) RCT for her

=> Lord Denning tried to introduce RCT in English law :
- “By whatever name it is described, it is a trust imposed by law whenever justice and good conscience require it”
- “it is a liberal process, founded upon large principle of equity, to be applied in cases where the legal owner cannot conscientiously keep the property for himself alone, but ought to allow another to have the property or the benefit of it or a share in it”

Question 20

RCTs - Westdeutsche

Answer 20

Lord Browne Wilkinson at 716G-H: RCTs could be a good idea but whether English law should adopt them will have to be decided in future case (where point not obiter)

“Although the resulting trust is an unsuitable basis for developing proprietary restitutionary remedies, the remedial constructive trust, if introduced into English law, may provide a more satisfactory road forward.”
=> “The court by way of remedy might impose a constructive trust on a defendant who knowingly retains property of which the plaintiff has been unjustly deprived. Since the remedy can be tailored to the circumstances of the particular case, innocent third parties would not be prejudiced and restitutionary defences, such as change of position, are capable of being given effect.”

Question 21

RCTs - Re Polly Peck International

Answer 21

Main point = CA refusing to recognise RCT in insolvency context

Question 22

RCTs - Crossco v Jolan

Answer 22

[84] although Lord BW’s divide “not universally accepted”, “the current general view is that English law does not at present recognise a remedial constructive trust of the kind described by Lord Browne Wilkinson, with its critical features of judicial discretion and retrospectivity”

Question 23

RCTs - Bailey v Angrove

Answer 23

Lord Sumption rejecting RCTs : “English law is generally averse to the discretionary adjustment of property rights, and has not recognised the remedial constructive trust favoured in some other jurisdictions, notably the United States and Canada