W301 UNIT 10: Resulting trusts

A resulting trust arises when property is transferred but the beneficial interest is not fully disposed of, or when a person contributes to the purchase price but the property is in another's name. It is implied by law to return the beneficial interest to the transferor or contributor.

The template covers key cases including Vandervell v IRC [1967], Re Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund [1958], Re West Sussex Constabulary's Benevolent Fund [1970], Re Bucks Constabulary Fund [1979], Hanchett-Stamford v AG [2008], Tinsley v Milligan [1994], and Tribe v Tribe [1996].

Automatic resulting trusts occur when an express trust fails to dispose of the entire beneficial interest. Presumed resulting trusts arise from voluntary transfers or purchase money contributions, where the law presumes the transferor did not intend to gift the property, unless rebutted.

The presumption of advancement (e.g., father to child, husband to wife) can rebut the presumption of resulting trust. However, it is weak and easily rebutted, and has been largely abolished by the Equality Act 2010.

In cases like Tinsley v Milligan [1994], a resulting trust was allowed despite illegality if the claimant did not need to rely on the illegal purpose. However, if the illegal purpose is carried out, the trust may be denied, as per Tribe v Tribe [1996].

Yes, the template is fully editable in Xmind. You can add notes, change colors, reorganize branches, and customize the content to suit your study needs.