DOCSLIB.ORG

M33157: Law of Trusts | University of Nottingham

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
M33157: Law of Trusts | University of Nottingham 09/27/21 M33157: Law of Trusts | University of Nottingham M33157: Law of Trusts View Online 1. Pearce, R.A., Barr, W.: Pearce & Stevens’ trusts and equitable obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2018). 2. Penner, J.E.: The law of trusts. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2016). 3. Discretionary Trusts and Powers of Appointment: Progressive Assimilation, https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/3253, (1992). 4. Developing the obligation characteristic of the trust. Law Quarterly Review. 117, (2001). 5. Reconceptualising the express trust. Cambridge Law Journal. 61, (2002). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197302001769. 6. Explaining the Trust. The law quarterly review. (2015). 1/11 09/27/21 M33157: Law of Trusts | University of Nottingham 7. Gardner, S.: An introduction to the law of trusts. Oxford University Press, New York (2011). 8. Pearce, R.A., Barr, W.: Pearce & Stevens’ trusts and equitable obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2018). 9. Penner, J.E.: The law of trusts. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2016). 10. McPhail v Doulton [1971] AC 424. 11. Re Baden (No 2) [1973] 1 Ch 9. 12. Emery, C.T.: The most hallowed principle: certainty of beneficiaries of trusts and powers of appointment. The law quarterly review. 98, (1982). 13. Reconceptualising the express trust. Cambridge Law Journal. 14. Pearce, R.A., Barr, W.: Pearce & Stevens’ trusts and equitable obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2018). 2/11 09/27/21 M33157: Law of Trusts | University of Nottingham 15. Penner, J.E.: The law of trusts. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2016). 16. Gardner, S.: An introduction to the law of trusts. Oxford University Press, New York (2011). 17. Gravells, Nigel P.: Public Purpose Trusts. Modern Law Review. 40, (1977). 18. Charities Act 2011, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/25/contents/enacted. 19. Pearce, R.A., Barr, W.: Pearce & Stevens’ trusts and equitable obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2018). 20. Penner, J.E.: The law of trusts. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2016). 21. Gardner, S.: An introduction to the law of trusts. Oxford University Press, New York (2011). 22. Re Denley’s Trust Deed [1969] 1 Ch 373. 23. 3/11 09/27/21 M33157: Law of Trusts | University of Nottingham Re Lipinski [1976] Ch 235. 24. Developing the obligation characteristic of the trust. Law Quarterly Review. 117, (2001). 25. Reconceptualising the express trust. Cambridge Law Journal. 61, (2002). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197302001769. 26. Pearce, R.A., Barr, W.: Pearce & Stevens’ trusts and equitable obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2018). 27. Penner, J.E.: The law of trusts. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2016). 28. Choithram International SA v Pagarani [2001] 1 WLR 1. 29. Pennington v Waine [2002] 1 WLR 2075. 30. Gardner, S.: An introduction to the law of trusts. Oxford University Press, New York (2011). 31. 4/11 09/27/21 M33157: Law of Trusts | University of Nottingham Pearce, R.A., Barr, W.: Pearce & Stevens’ trusts and equitable obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2018). 32. Penner, J.E.: The law of trusts. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2016). 33. Vandervell v IRC [1967] 2 AC 291. 34. Re Vandervell (No 2) [1967] 2 AC 291. 35. Nelson v Greening & Sykes [2007] EWCA Civ 1358. 36. Pearce, R.A., Barr, W.: Pearce & Stevens’ trusts and equitable obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015). 37. Pearce, R.A., Stevens, J., Barr, W.: The law of trusts and equitable obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010). 38. Penner, J.E.: The law of trusts. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2014). 39. Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638. 5/11 09/27/21 M33157: Law of Trusts | University of Nottingham 40. Midland Bank plc v Cooke [1995] 4 All ER 562. 41. Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, [2007] 2 AC 432. 42. Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53. 43. Editor’s notebook: the still not ended, never-ending story. The conveyancer and property lawyer. 83–86 (2012). 44. Jones v Kernott: inferring and imputing in Essex. The conveyancer and property lawyer. 167–180 (2012). 45. Rethinking Family Property. The law quarterly review. 109, (1993). 46. The Property Rights of Unmarried Cohabitees: The Case for Reform. The conveyancer and property lawyer. (2004). 47. Pearce, R.A., Barr, W.: Pearce & Stevens’ trusts and equitable obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015). 6/11 09/27/21 M33157: Law of Trusts | University of Nottingham 48. Pearce, R.A., Stevens, J., Barr, W.: The law of trusts and equitable obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010). 49. Penner, J.E.: The law of trusts. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2014). 50. Pearce, R.A., Barr, W.: Pearce & Stevens’ trusts and equitable obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015). 51. Pearce, R.A., Stevens, J., Barr, W.: The law of trusts and equitable obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010). 52. Penner, J.E.: The law of trusts. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2014). 53. Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1, 16-18. 54. Target Holdings v Redferns [1996] AC 421. 55. AIB Group (UK) plc v Redler [2014] UKSC 58. 7/11 09/27/21 M33157: Law of Trusts | University of Nottingham 56. Pearce, R.A., Barr, W.: Pearce & Stevens’ trusts and equitable obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015). 57. Pearce, R.A., Stevens, J., Barr, W.: The law of trusts and equitable obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010). 58. Penner, J.E.: The law of trusts. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2014). 59. Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46. 60. FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45, [2014] 3 WLR 535. 61. Pearce, R.A., Barr, W.: Pearce & Stevens’ trusts and equitable obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015). 62. Pearce, R.A., Stevens, J., Barr, W.: The law of trusts and equitable obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010). 63. Penner, J.E.: The law of trusts. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2014). 8/11 09/27/21 M33157: Law of Trusts | University of Nottingham 64. Boscawen v Bajwa [1995] 4 All ER 769. 65. Bishopgate Investment Management Ltd v Homan [1995] 1 All ER 347. 66. Foskett v McKeown [1997] 3 All ER 392 (CA). 67. Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102 (HL). 68. Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Vaughan [1992] 4 All ER 22. 69. Smith, L.D.: Tracing into the Payment of a Debt. The Cambridge Law Journal. 54, (1995). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197300083677. 70. Hayton, D.: Chapter 1, Equity’s Identification Rules. In: Laundering and tracing. pp. 1–21. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1995). 71. Rotherham, C.: Chapter 6, Tracing and Justice in Bankruptcy. In: Restitution and insolvency. pp. 113–133. Mansfield Press, London (2000). 72. 9/11 09/27/21 M33157: Law of Trusts | University of Nottingham Pearce, R.A., Barr, W.: Pearce & Stevens’ trusts and equitable obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015). 73. Pearce, R.A., Stevens, J., Barr, W.: The law of trusts and equitable obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010). 74. Penner, J.E.: The law of trusts. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2014). 75. Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan [1995] 2 AC 378. 76. Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] 2 AC 164. 77. Barlow Clowes International Ltd & Anor v Eurotrust International Ltd & Ors (Isle of Man) [2005] UKPC 37, [2006] 1 All ER 333. 78. Abou-Rahmah v Abacha [2006] EWCA Civ 1492, [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 115. 79. El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings [1993] 3 All ER 717. 80. Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] AC 669. 10/11 09/27/21 M33157: Law of Trusts | University of Nottingham 81. Knowing Assistance and Knowing Receipt: Taking Stock. The law quarterly review. 112, (1996). 82. Thomas, S.B.: ‘Goodbye’ Knowing Receipt. ‘Hello’ Unconscientious Receipt. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 21, 239–265 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/21.2.239. 83. Yeo, T.M.: Knowing What is Dishonesty. The law quarterly review. (2002). 84. Nicholls, Lord: Chapter 15, Knowing Receipt: The Need for a New Landmark, from: Restitution : past, present and future : essays in honour of Gareth Jones. In: Restitution: past, present and future : essays in honour of Gareth Jones. pp. 231–246. Hart, Oxford (1998). 11/11.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Key Facts and Key Cases
    KEY FACTS KEY CASES Equity & Trusts 25726.indb i 18/11/2013 10:40 KEY FACTS KEY CASES The Key Facts Key Cases revision series is designed to give you a clear understanding and concise overview of the fundamental principles of your law course. The books’ chapters refl ect the most commonly taught topics, breaking the law down into bite- size sections with descriptive headings. Diagrams, tables and bullet points are used throughout to make the law easy to understand and memorise, and comprehensive case checklists are provided that show the principles and application of case law for your subject. Titles in the series: Contract Law Criminal Law English Legal System Equity & Trusts EU Law Family Law Human Rights Land Law Tort Law For a full listing of the Routledge Revision range of titles, visit www.routledge.com/law 25726.indb ii 18/11/2013 10:40 KEY FACTS KEY CASES Equity & Trusts Chris Turner and Judith Bray Routledge Taylor & Francis Group LONDON AND NEW YORK 25726.indb iii 18/11/2013 10:40 First edition published 2014 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2014 Chris Turner and Judith Bray The right of Chris Turner and Judith Bray to be identifi ed as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 5 – Equity and Trusts Suggested Answers - January 2013
    LEVEL 6 - UNIT 5 – EQUITY AND TRUSTS SUGGESTED ANSWERS - JANUARY 2013 Note to Candidates and Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key points students should have included in their answers to the January 2013 examinations. The suggested answers set out a response that a good (merit/distinction) candidate would have provided. The suggested answers do not for all questions set out all the points which students may have included in their responses to the questions. Students will have received credit, where applicable, for other points not addressed by the suggested answers. Students and tutors should review the suggested answers in conjunction with the question papers and the Chief Examiners’ reports which provide feedback on student performance in the examination. SECTION A Question 1 This essay will examine the general characteristics of equitable remedies before examining each remedy in turn to analyse whether they are in fact strict and of limited flexibility as the question suggests. The best way to examine the general characteristics of equitable remedies is to draw comparisons with the common law. Equitable remedies are, of course discretionary, whereas the common law remedy of damages is available as of right. This does not mean that the court has absolute discretion, there are clear principles which govern the grant of equitable remedies. Equitable remedies are granted where the common law remedies would be inadequate or where the common law remedies are not available because the right is exclusively equitable. One of the key characteristics of equitable remedies is of course that they act in personam.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharing Homes: a Discussion Paper
    The Law Commission (LAW COM No 278) SHARING HOMES A Discussion Paper Presented to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by the Lord High Chancellor by Command of Her Majesty November 2002 Cm xxxx The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Toulson, Chairman 1 Professor Hugh Beale QC Mr Stuart Bridge Professor Martin Partington CBE Judge Alan Wilkie, QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. This Discussion Paper was first published online on 18 July 2002. The text of this Discussion Paper is available on the Internet at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk 1 At the date this report was signed, the Chairman of the Law Commission was the Right Honourable Lord Justice Carnwath CVO. ii THE LAW COMMISSION SHARING HOMES A Discussion Paper CONTENTS Paragraph Page Executive Summary vi PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 The shared home 1.6 2 A property-based approach 1.23 6 PART II: THE CURRENT LAW 9 Introduction 2.1 9 Trusts of land 2.4 10 Legal and beneficial ownership of the shared home 2.10 11 Legal title – joint tenancy 2.12 11 Beneficial ownership- joint tenancy or tenancy in common 2.16 12 Resolution of disputes between trustees and beneficiaries 2.23 14 Dealings with third parties 2.27 15 Occupation of the shared home 2.32 17 Where a person has an interest under a trust of land 2.34 17 Matrimonial home rights 2.37 18 Orders regulating
    [Show full text]
  • Private Law in Theory and Practice
    Private Law in Theory and Practice Private Law in Theory and Practice explores important theoretical issues in tort law, the law of contract and the law of unjust enrichment, and relates the theory to judicial decision making in these areas of private law. Topics covered include the politics and philosophy of tort law reform, the role of good faith in contract law, comparative perspectives on setting aside con- tracts for mistake, and the theory and practice of proprietary remedies in the law of unjust enrichment. Contributors to the book bring a variety of theoretical perspectives to bear on the analysis of private law. They include: economic analysis, corrective justice theory, comparative analysis of law, socio-legal inquiry, social history, political theory as well as doctrinal analysis of the law. In all cases the theor- etical approaches are applied to recent case law developments in England, Australia and Canada, and, in the case of tort law, proposals in all these jurisdictions to reform the law. The book aims to present the theory of private law, and the application of theory to practical legal problems in an accessible form to teachers and students of tort, contract and the law of unjust enrichment, legal researchers and law reformers. Michael Bryan is Professor of Law at the University of Melbourne. He has researched and published extensively in the areas of equity, trusts and restitu- tion, including The Law of Non-Disclosure (with A. Duggan and F. Hanks: Longman, 1995) and contributed a chapter to The Law of Obligations: Connections and Boundaries (UCL Press, 2003).
    [Show full text]
  • TOLATA Trusts of Land – Where Are We Now? By
    TOLATA Trusts of Land – Where are we now? by Michelle Stevens-Hoare Hardwicke Michelle Stevens-Hoare aka Brie has developed a successful specialist property practice focusing particular on real property, the more commercial aspects of property work including disputes around property developments and commercial property. In addition Brie has considerable experience of contentious probate involving property. Her appearance in the Legal 500 as a leading property practitioner each year since 2002 and has also been ranked within Chambers UK every year since 2003 is one indicator of her reputation and profile. In 2005 Michelle was appointed as a Deputy Adjudicator to HM Land Registry. In 2010 she was reappointed. That appointment draws on her extensive experience of property litigation and has allowed her to enhance her knowledge and skills further. She is described in the directories as "...bright, academic and super organised" as well as “...committed..” and “...wonderful to use and doesn’t stand on ceremony...” as well as “...a very client focused, experienced, specialist property barrister”. Mediation is the other string to Brie’s bow. She has the benefit of a great deal of experience of mediation from both angles: representing clients in mediations and as a mediator. She is increasingly in demand in both capacities. Brie contributes to both The Law and Practice of Compromise by Foskett and Cousins The Law of Mortgages . HARDWICKE Hardwicke Building Lincoln’s Inn London WC2A 3SB Tel: 020 7691 0036 Fax: 020 7691 1234 Email: [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Moffat's Trusts Law Text and Materials Seventh Edition
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-79644-6 — Moffat's Trusts Law 7th Edition Frontmatter More Information Moffat’s Trusts Law Text and Materials Seventh Edition Always the serious student’s choice for a Trusts Law textbook, the new seventh edition of Moffat’s Trusts Law once again provides a clear examination of the rules of Trusts, retaining its hallmark combination of a contextualised approach and a commercial focus. The impact of statutory developments and a wealth of new cases – including the Supreme Court and Privy Council decisions in Patel v. Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, PJS v. News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC, Burnden Holdings v. Fielding [2018] UKSC 14, and Federal Republic of Brazil v. Durant [2015] UKPC 35 – is explored. A streamlining of the chapters on charitable Trusts, better to align the book with the typical Trusts Law course, helps students understand the new directions being taken in the areas of Trust Law and equitable remedies. Jonathan Garton is a professor of Law at the University of Warwick. His main research interests are in the law of Trusts, with a particular focus on charities. Rebecca Probert is a professor of Law at the University of Exeter. She has published widely on both modern family law and its history. Gerry Bean is a partner at DLA Piper, one of the largest global law firms, where he practices in corporate law and M&A. © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-79644-6 — Moffat's Trusts Law 7th Edition Frontmatter More Information The Law in Context Series Editors: William Twining (University College London), Maksymilian Del Mar (Queen Mary, University of London) and Bronwen Morgan (University of New South Wales).
    [Show full text]
  • Yours, Mine, Or Ours? Charting a Course Through Equity's
    Yours, Mine, or Ours? Charting a Course Through Equity’s Determination of Domestic Proprietary Interests Kathrine Galloway ORCID: 0000-0002-8047-1210 Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements for an award of Doctor of Philosophy Submitted 24 March 2017 Melbourne Law School ABSTRACT Distributing proprietary interests between domestic heterosexual partners remains the purview of the courts of equity, using the trust. In answering the question: ‘Whose property is this?’ the courts are faced with the tension between a property law system designed for the market, and property claims arising from within a couple’s intimate lives. The law’s market orientation favours the party best able to explain their claim in market terms. Because of the gendered structures of society and the family, the process tends to favour the man. This prompts the question central to this thesis: Does equity have the capacity to determine domestic proprietary interests consistent with equality between men and women intimate partners in light of pervasive gender inequality? Existing analysis of intimate partner trusts predominantly suggests new redistributive mechanisms to resolve the problem of equality. Other work describes the law’s evolution towards more ‘familial’ approaches as ameliorating the unfairness of market norms applied to intimate relationships. This thesis adds to the literature by using relational theory to focus instead on equity’s existing property-based distributive framework, charting a course through the tensions inherent in the application of market principles to the intimate context. The tensions of individual and community, market and home, arise from the tenets of liberalism built into private law.
    [Show full text]
  • Durham Research Online
    Durham Research Online Deposited in DRO: 24 May 2016 Version of attached le: Accepted Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Hayward, A. (2016) 'Common intention constructive trusts and the role of imputation in theory and practice.', Conveyancer and property lawyer., 80 (3). pp. 233-242. Further information on publisher's website: http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/Catalogue/ProductDetails.aspx?recordid=333 Publisher's copyright statement: This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Conveyancer and Property Lawyer following peer review. The denitive published version Hayward, A. (2016) 'Common intention constructive trusts and the role of imputation in theory and practice.', Conveyancer and property lawyer., 80 (3): 233-242 is available online on Westlaw UK or from Thomson Reuters DocDel service. Additional information: Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk Common Intention Constructive Trusts and the Role of Imputation in Theory and Practice: Barnes v Phillips Barnes v Phillips [2015] EWCA Civ 1056; [2016] HLR 3 Andy Hayward* Following the Supreme Court decision in Jones v Kernott, imputation of fair shares now exists as a possibility in the quantification (but not acquisition) of beneficial ownership under a common intention constructive trust.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of English and Australian Constructive Trusts
    Denning Law Journal 2020 Vol 32 p 151-173 BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF THE FAMILY HOME: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ENGLISH AND AUSTRALIAN CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS Mark Pawlowski * James Brown** ABSTRACT The aim of this article is to review and critically analyse the English law relating to common intention constructive trusts in the context of the family home. In particular, it seeks to show how the English courts have addressed the question of establishing and quantifying the parties’ beneficial shares in both sole and joint ownership cases. The writers also seek to compare the English approach with the way in which such ques- tions have been answered by the Australian courts. The primary purpose of this comparison is to consider what lessons (if any) can be learnt from the Australian model. Key words: family home, constructive trust, beneficial ownership, common intention, presumption of equality, single regime, composite enquiry INTRODUCTION Much of English law regarding the imposition of a constructive trust in relation to the family home has developed in the context of sole ownership cases where legal title to the property is vested in one of the parties. In these cases, considerable confu- sion has persisted amongst the judiciary regarding the correct test to be applied in establishing beneficial entitlement (the acquisition question) and the method by which such entitlement should be assessed (the quantification question). In terms of acquiring a beneficial share, the House of Lords, in two landmark cases1 decided in the early 1970s, clarified the previous law by adopting a test based on common intention and detrimental reliance. These cases have provided the foundations for determining beneficial entitlement in single ownership cases under English law.
    [Show full text]
  • Durham Law Review
    Durham Law Review Volume VI Part 1 February 2021 [2021] D.L.R 1 Durham Law Review [2021] BUILDING A NEW FOUNDATION FOR TRUSTS OF THE FAMILY HOME: THE CASE FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT. Zachary Salmon 2 Durham Law Review [2021] Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 1 .............................................................................................................................. 7 Evaluating the Current Approaches and Critiquing the Proposed Solutions .......................................7 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................7 The Resulting Trust ........................................................................................................................................7 The Common Intention Constructive Trust ...................................................................................................9 Contemporary Solutions in Trust of the Family Home Disputes.................................................................. 14 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 18 CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................ 19 Contrasting the Approaches to Unjust Enrichment
    [Show full text]
  • Resulting Trusts
    8 Resulting trusts 1 Introduction to resulting trusts (1) What are resulting trusts?1 The previous two chapters have examined the circumstances in which a trust relation- ship may be created by the deliberate intention and act of the settlor. Such trusts are known as ‘express trusts’. However, in some situations property will be regarded as subject to a trust despite the absence of any express intention on the part of the settlor. In English law ‘resulting trusts’ are one of the two main categories of such informal trusts, the other being that of ‘constructive trusts’. The circumstances in which prop- erty will become subject to a resulting trust were recently examined by the House of Lords in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council.2 Lord Browne-Wilkinson identified two circumstances in which a resulting trust would arise: ‘Under existing law a resulting trust arises in two sets of circumstances: (A) where A makes a voluntary payment to B or pays (wholly or in part) for the purchase of property which is vested either in B alone or in the joint names of A and B, there is a presumption that A did not intend to make a gift to B; the money or property is held on trust for A (if he is the sole provider of the money) or in the case of a joint purchaser by A and B in shares proportionate to their contributions. It is important to stress that this is only a presumption, which presumption is easily rebutted either by the counter presumption of advancement or by direct evidence of A’s intention to make an outright transfer .
    [Show full text]
  • [2015] Sghc 35
    Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam v Krishnavanny d/o Vaithilingam (administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) and another [2015] SGHC 35 Case Number : Suit No 817 of 2012 Decision Date : 04 February 2015 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : Vinodh Coomaraswamy J Counsel Name(s) : N Kanagavijayan (Kana & Co) for the plaintiff; Muralli Rajaram and Lim Min (Straits Law Practice LLC) for the first defendant; A Thamilselvan (Subra TT Law LLC) for the second defendant. Parties : Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam — Krishnavanny d/o Vaithilingam (administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) and another Trusts – Resulting trusts – Presumed resulting trusts Trusts – Constructive trusts Equity – Estoppel – Proprietary estoppel Equity – Defences – Laches 4 February 2015 Vinodh Coomaraswamy J: Introduction 1 Ponnusamy Sivapakiam died intestate on 14 February 2008. [note: 1] The single largest asset of her estate is the property known as 43 Swan Lake Avenue, Singapore 455725. She purchased the property in her sole name in 1966 at a price of $28,600. Her estate sold it 2012 at a price of $2.65m. This suit arises out of a claim by her eldest son, the plaintiff, that he has an interest in the property in equity over and above his interest in it arising from Sivapakiam’s intestacy. [note: 2] 2 Sivapakiam had six children: three daughters and three sons. In order of their birth, her children are: [note: 3] (a) Krishnavanny d/o Vaithilingam, a daughter and the first defendant; (b) Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam, a son and the plaintiff; (c) Olagaysbery d/o Vaithilingam a daughter; (d) V Nithia, a daughter and the second defendant; (e) Olagappan Vaithilingam Thirumall, a son; and (f) V Davadass, a son.
    [Show full text]