Resulting/Constructive Trusts * (help me)

Question 1

Types of trust?

Answer 1

1. Express: Goodman v Gallant
2. Resulting
3. Constructive

Question 2

Difference(s) between Resulting and Constructive?

Answer 2

1. R more relevant in commercial contexts
   • Stack v Dowden
   • Laskar v Laskar: Possible for family to create RT if investment judged to be purely financial
   • Marr v Collie [2017] (Privy Council): CONTEXT MATTERS, don’t just look at r/s between individuals
2. R remedy: Input = Output; C needs quantification of equitable interests

Question 3

[Resulting] What are the requirements?

Answer 3

1. Beneficiary must have acted in the character of a purchaser
   • Direct monetary contribution: Oxley v Hiscock
   • Intention to join tgt to purchase prop (e.g. $$ not advanced as just a loan)

Question 4

[Resulting] When is an RT created?

Answer 4

— Curley v Parkes —

• ‘Crystallises on the date that the property is acquired’

Question 5

[Constructive] What types of CTs are there?

Answer 5

• – Lloyds Bank v Rosset —
  1. Express common intention CT: Parties have discussed dividing shares

2. Implied common intention CT: No agreement re dividing prop

Question 6

[Ex CT] What are the requirements for Express CT?

Answer 6

1. Common intention
   • Gissing v Gissing: Can impute intention where law allows
2. Detrimental reliance

Question 7

[Ex CT] Detrimental reliance test?

Answer 7

• – Eves v Eves —
  1. Judge based on:
  (a) Evidence of conversations ‘however imperfectly remembered’
  (b) Conduct of parties (Grant v Edward - Reasonable conduct for one who has an interest in prop)

— Curran v Collins —
2. If there was an excuse given to other party (as to why name not registered), may be entitled to equitable interest
(C v C: No intention to share prop demonstrated)

• – Barrett v Barrett —
  3. If CT was made from doing something illegal (e.g. exploiting a loophole in law), then no interest in prop

Question 8

[Ex CT] What is the critique of the detrimental reliance test?

Answer 8

— Midland Bank v Cooke —

• Waite LJ critical: Such evidence makes judging these cases difficult

Question 9

[Im CT] What are the requirements for Implied CT?

Answer 9

1. Common intention

2. Conduct showing interest in prop

Question 10

[Im CT] How is common intention judged?

Answer 10

1. Can intent to share prop be deduced objectively from conduct?
   • Geary v Rankine
   • Court may be more willing to presume common intention if there is an intimate r/s between parties: Abbott v Abbott
2. If cannot deduce, what would reasonable and just people have intended?
   • Kernott v Jones
3. Has intention changed over time?
   • Insol Funding v Cowlam

Question 11

[Im CT] What conduct can show intent to share prop?

Answer 11

1. Substantial financial contribution to purchase price: Lloyds Bank v Rosset; Burns v Burns (no payment for purchase, no ben interest)
   • Qualifying for a discount counts: Oxley v Hiscock
   • NOT a gift or loan: Re Sharpe

1a. Legal owner must be aware of the (financial) contribution: Lightfoot v Lightfoot-Brown
2. Substantial improvements to the prop: Pettitt v Pettitt (Redeco only lasts a few years, doesn’t count)

Question 12

[Quantification] How will equitable interests in prop be quantified?

Answer 12

1. Court to look at ‘whole course of dealing’ to infer intention and share
   • Midland Bank v Cooke
   • Non-financial factors ‘may be relevant to divining’ true intentions: Lady Hale, S v D

1a. Can impute intention where the law allows it, if not obvious: Kernott v Jones
• Barnes v Philips [2015]

2. Have regard to possible changes in ben interest over time: Oxley v Hiscock
   • If stopped paying bills, etc, clear that less ben interest to be had: S v D; K v J
3. Burden of proof on party seeking to show that legal and ben interests differ: S v D
   • In what way and to what extent do they differ?

Question 13

[Quantification] What does Chadwick LJ say in Oxley v Hiscock about not considering the possibility of changes in beneficial interest over time?

Answer 13

‘Artificial’ and ‘an unnecessary fiction’, especially when evidence shows that parties had not thought about splitting shares at the start

Question 14

What are the issues with Lloyds Bank v Rosset?

Answer 14

1. Baroness Hale, S v D: Sets the bar too high; direct contributions to purchase price should not be the only thing that allows for ready inferrence of common intention

Question 15

What is the difference between PE and CT?

Answer 15

PE:
• frustrated expectation
• ∆ of position may extend to circumstances
• Flexible remedies

CT:
• frustrated bargain
• ∆ position= express agreement
• remedies must be quantified