Automatic Resulting Trusts

Equitable maxim

Equity Abhors a vacumn

Ab initio

Re Ames Settlement, Wedding Settlement annuled

Failure of an express trust subsequently

Re Gillingham Bus Disaster, primary function completed, secondary function too uncertain

Failure to exhaust the beneficial interest

Davis v Richards & Wallington Industries

Donating funds to a college via dividends

Vanderwall v IRC - Issues with certainity of objects

Estate not liable to pay taxes after death

Re Vanderwall Trusts (no2)

Works on an intention based framework rather than an unjust enrichment theroy

Browne-Wilkson, Westduestche Landesbank

• Countered that ARTs arise due to an absence of intention to benefit the recipient rather than a presumed intention to retain the beneficial interest for the settlor 

• He argued that it was not a question of presuming intent, but rather a necessary consequence of the failure of the primary disposition  

Lord Millet, Air Jamacia v Charlton

Swadling

• Swadling argues that resulting trusts should not be seen as an automatic legal response, but rather a matter of voluntary intention 

• He Challenges Millets analysis by asserting that the beneficial interest should not necessarily revert to the settlor unless there is clear evidence of retention of beneficial title 

Birks

Unjust Enrichment Theoroy 

• Some academidcs such as, Prof Birks, suggest that resulting trusts are best explained through unjust enrichment principles, ensuring that no party retains an unintendedw indfall 

• However this view has been mostly resisted in the courts, which prefer the intention based explanation