Resulting Trusts

Re Vinogradoff

Even a 4y/o minor was a trustee for VCRT under PRT

Thavorn v. BCCI

Aunt opened bank account in nephew’s name, only intended to operate herself VCRT applied.

Aroso v. Coutts & Co.

Evidence Rebutted VCRT, joint acc opened held to be a gift

Lohia v. Lohia

s.60(3) affected the applicability of the old presumption of RT for VCRT of immoveable property, which previously presumed PRT in the absence of a declaration of a gift.

NCA v. Dong (orbiter)

S.60(3) LPA 1925, did not affect the applicability of the presumption of RT for VCRT of immoveable property merely deals with technicalities of conveyancing.

The Venture

PMRT in moveable property arose in favour of contributors proportionate to their contribution

Foskett v. McKeown

RT did not arise in the favour of beneficiaries, as they were entitled to the money through other principles of breach.

Tinsley v. Milligan

Contribution to purchase price is essential for PMRT to arise

Cowcher v. Cowcher

contribution towards mortgage payment is not sufficient, there must be a share in the liability, regardless of what is paid.

Lasker v. Lasker

Contribution towards mortgage money is decided differently in commercial contexts

Springette v. Defoe

Discounts given to a person that affect purchase price are also contribution.

Drake v. Whipp

when there is contribution to repair at the time of purchase, the share is proportionate to the increase in value.

Burns v. Burns

No PRT arises for contribution to general household costs.

Fowkes v. Pascoe

When there is a sole contributor to jointly owned assets, PRT operates only to life interest of Contributor.

Aboso v. Cout

PRT rebutted when evidence exists that a gift is intended

Re Sharpe

PRT rebutted when evidence exists that a loan was intended.

Re vanderwell

PRT is rebutted when evidence exists that trust was intended in favour of third-party.

Bennet v. Bennet

Loco parentis applies to any guardian

Stewart v. Watkin

PoA applies between both spouses and both parents & children.

Sekhon v. Alissa

UK jurisdiction doesn’t recognise POA for Mother-Child

Abraham’s v. Abraham’s TIB

no PoA between wife - husband

Tinsley v. Milligan

Reliance principle applies for illegality. (later overruled)

Tribe v. Tribe

locus poenitentiae is an exception to reliance principle. did not do fraud despite intent.

Patel v. Mirza

transferred for illegal activity which did not occur. CoA allowed PRT and overruled Tv.M