424:". A presumed resulting trust occurs where the transfer fails, and there is no reason to assume it was intended as an outright gift. With some relationships, such as property transfers between father and son and husband and wife, this presumption of advancement is applied by default, and requires strong evidence for it to be rebutted. Presumed resulting trusts do arise, however, in one of three situations: where it is a voluntary gift, where there is a contribution to purchase price, and where the presumption that it was an outright gift can be rebutted. Rules differ for transfers and gifts of personal property and land; while personal property is assumed by default to create a resulting trust, Section 60(3) of the
830:. Tinsley and Milligan had jointly purchased a house to run as a business, and both accepted that it had been bought to own jointly. Only Tinsley was registered as the owner, however, so that Milligan (with Tinsley's knowledge) could claim state benefits. The House of Lords decided that Milligan could claim an equitable interest, since it was the contribution to the purchase price (a lawful act) which she was relying on, not the associated fraud (an illegal act). Although the purpose of the initial registration had been illegal, the purpose of the purchase itself had not.
467:, disagreed with Megarry's classification. While he agreed there were two categories, he felt the dividing line was not based on intention, and the classes were "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" and "Where A transfers property to B on express trusts, but the trusts declared do not exhaust the whole beneficial interest", with both involving a presumption of intention. It is possible to argue that
412:"equity abhors a vacuum" is followed: it is against principle for a piece of property to have no owner. As such, the courts assign the property to somebody in a resulting trust to avoid this becoming an issue. They occur in one of four situations: where there is no declaration of trust, where an express trust fails, where there is surplus property, or upon the dissolution of an unincorporated association. Rules differ depending on the situation and the type of original trust under dispute; failed
861:(6) The only way in which a man can protect his property from his creditors is by divesting himself of all beneficial interest in it. Evidence that he transferred the property in order to protect it from his creditors, therefore, does nothing by itself to rebut the presumption of advancement; it reinforces it. To rebut the presumption it is necessary to show that he intended to retain a beneficial interest and conceal it from his creditors.
77:
24:
859:(5) The transferor can lead evidence of the illegal purpose whenever it is necessary for him to do so provided that he has withdrawn from the transaction before the illegal purpose has been wholly or partly carried into effect. It will be necessary for him to do so (i) if he brings an action at law or (ii) if he brings proceedings in equity and needs to rebut the presumption of advancement.
863:(7) The court should not conclude that this was his intention without compelling circumstantial evidence to this effect. The identity of the transferee and the circumstances in which the transfer was made would be highly relevant. It is unlikely that the court would reach such a conclusion where the transfer was made in the absence of an imminent and perceived threat from known creditors.
712:, it is generally agreed that a presumed resulting trust was created over a transfer of real property, although there is some dispute. Where a person contributed to the price of a piece of property, they are presumed to take an equivalent equitable interest in that property; this is the "clearest form of presumed resulting trust", and was recognised by both Browne-Wilkinson in
772:, and is that the judge should base his decision on " story as to how I came to have , and judge that story with reference to the surrounding facts and circumstances". Where the property is money held in a joint bank account, the presumption is that it is a joint tenancy of that account. As such, when one dies the property is passed absolutely to the other, as in
659:, not trusts law. As such, the contract between the association's members should be the deciding factor in how the property is to be distributed, and there is no need to involve resulting trusts. If the contractual provisions identify how to distribute property, they will be followed; if not, the property will be distributed according to an
855:(3) Subject to (2) the transferor can recover the property if he can do so without relying on the illegal purpose. This will normally be the case where the property was transferred without consideration in circumstances where the transferor can rely on an express declaration of trust or as a resulting trust in his favour.
497:, Browne-Wilkinson stated that resulting trusts "are traditionally regarded as examples of trusts giving effect to the common intention of the parties. A resulting trust is not imposed by law against the intentions of the trustee (as in a constructive trust) but gives effect to his presumed intention".
542:
Automatic resulting trusts arise from a "gap" in the equitable title of property. The equitable maxim "equity abhors a vacuum" is followed; it is against principle for a piece of property to have no owner. As such, the courts assign the property to somebody in a resulting trust to avoid this becoming
671:
Where property passes between individuals, English law presumes that the relationship between them makes it an outright gift, and thus not subject to a resulting trust in the event of failure; this is the "presumption of advancement". A presumed resulting trust is where the transfer fails, and there
527:
The principle in all these cases is that the equity fastens on the conscience of the person who receives from another property transferred for a specific purpose only and not, therefore, for the recipient's own purposes, so that such a person will not be permitted to treat the property as his own or
554:
No declaration of trust is the most straightforward form of resulting trust, and is created when a trust is created, but the settlor does not give the form in which the property is to be held. For example, the settlor might give property to the beneficiary to hold for life, but fail to explain what
488:
said that "Like a constructive trust, a resulting trust arises by operation of law, though unlike a constructive trust it gives effect to intention. But it arises whether or not the transferor intended to retain a beneficial interest - he almost always does not - since it responds to the absence of
595:
A resulting trust will also be found where the purposes of a trust have been completed, but there is excess property left over; for example, a trust by a settlor to provide for his children's university education. Judges and academics disagree over what should happen to the property; possibilities
450:
stated that "A resulting trust is essentially a property concept; any property that a man does not effectually dispose of remains his own". A resulting trust could also be defined as an equitable reversion implied by the courts that may assist in the returning of trust property back to the settlor
728:
The clearest result of all the cases, without a single exception, is that the trust of a legal estate, whether freehold, copyhold or leasehold; whether taken in the names of the purchasers and others jointly, or in the names of other without that of the purchaser; whether in one name or several;
457:, he divided them into two categories; presumed resulting trusts, which are created by the presumed intention of the transferor of property, and automatic resulting trusts, which arise regardless of the transferor's intention whenever he has failed to dispose of the beneficial interest.
407:
as "essentially a property concept; any property that a man does not effectually dispose of remains his own". These trusts come in two forms: automatic resulting trusts, and presumed resulting trusts. Automatic resulting trusts arise from a "gap" in the equitable title of property. The
857:(4) It will almost invariably be so where the illegal purpose has not been carried out. It may be otherwise where the illegal purpose has been carried out and the transferee can rely on the transferor's conduct as inconsistent with his retention of a beneficial interest.
528:
to use it for other than the stated purpose...if the common intention is that property is transferred for a specific purpose and not so as to become the property of the transferee, the transferee cannot keep the property if for any reason that purpose cannot be fulfilled.
687:
Presumed resulting trusts do arise, however, in one of three situations; where it is a voluntary gift, where there is a contribution to purchase price, and where the presumption that it was an outright gift can be rebutted. Where a gift is voluntary, the assumption for
875:
empowers to the courts to reverse any transfer which removes assets from creditors with the intention to avoid their claims. These creditors do not have to be creditors at the time of the transfer; it is enough that they be creditors after the transfer or sale, as in
672:
is no reason to assume it was intended as an outright gift. There are several types of relationship where it is automatically presumed to be a gift. Where a father transfers property to a child, it is presumed that the property was an outright gift, as in
790:. Tax avoidance (which is legal, as opposed to tax evasion) frequently involves transferring property to a family member to avoid tax. Where the family member refuses to transfer it back, the taxpayer can come to court and argue it was a resulting trust.
442:
645:. Where the money was raised from identified individuals, the property should be held on resulting trust for donors upon the failure of the purpose trust. Where it is impossible or impractical, the property should be passed to the Crown as
851:(1) Title to property passes both at law and in equity even if the transfer is made for an illegal purpose. The fact that title has passed to the transferee does not preclude the transferor from bringing an action for restitution.
618:, where it was decided that excess funds will be held on resulting trust for the settlor. There are exceptions to this rule; the general rule is put aside if the court can find intention to benefit specific individuals, as in
515:
637:
512:
Resulting trusts work on a principle of "common intention". This is the idea that a resulting trust is a mix of the settlor's intention, and the trustee's knowledge that he is not intended to be the beneficiary. In
837:, the courts have been more willing to examine the intention of the parties rather than relying on the strict maxim that "he who comes to equity must come with clean hands". The standard law on this was set out by
419:
Where property passes between individuals, English law presumes that the relationship between them makes it an outright gift, and thus not subject to a resulting trust in the event of failure; this is the
778:. This presumption can be rebutted in several situations. It will be rebutted when the account, while in the name of both the husband and wife, is used exclusively for the husband's personal use, as in
737:, a distinct set of rules have arisen that do not apply to other land, because of the additional concerns. For example, while contributing to the mortgage will create an equitable interest, as in
543:
an issue. Automatic resulting trusts occur where an express trust fails. This includes where there is no valid declaration of trust, where there is surplus property, or upon the dissolution of an
678:. There is no similar recognition for a transfer from a mother, something recognised as a gift in Australia. A similar presumption exists where a transfer is made from a husband to a wife, as in
428:
prevents the creation of automatic resulting trusts. It does not comment on presumed resulting trusts, and while later law has seemingly permitted such trusts, there is some disagreement.
578:
871:, a common form of illegality is where the transferor is worried about bankruptcy or insolvency, and transfers the property to avoid having to pay his creditors. Section 423 of the
635:
or land) on their own account. When they dissolve, the question is then what to do with property that has been transferred to the association. The traditional view, as laid out in
734:
614:
759:. The court ruled that this created a resulting trust; because tax avoidance was the main objective, the mother could not possibly have intended it to be an outright gift.
596:
are that it should be held for the donors, that it should be held for the beneficiaries (as the donors intended to make an irrevocable gift) or that it should be given to
762:
The last situation where a presumed resulting trust is created is if the court can rebut the presumption of an outright gift. The general philosophy here was set out by
463:
489:
any intention on his part to pass a beneficial interest to the recipient". Resulting trusts were intended to fill in the gap left by a veiled transfer, obeying the
816:
878:
810:
774:
733:
Thus, where a person contributes to the purchase of the property, they will receive an equivalent equitable interest in any resulting trust that arises. For
588:
245:
808:
that "he who comes to equity must come with clean hands" was applied; the presumption would take effect, and no resulting trust would be created, as in
804:
Traditionally, when a person sought to rebut presumptions but was required to rely on an illegal act to prove that a resulting trust was intended, the
751:
680:
674:
505:, argues that Browne-Wilkinson's theory is flawed, primarily because if the trust can not be enforced against the trustee's wishes, it is a form of
780:
694:
458:
820:, where the purpose of the transfer involves illegality, the courts will not uphold it as a resulting trust. This rule was subtly modified by the
786:
120:
322:
379:
628:
608:
544:
562:
125:
555:
is to happen to the property when the holder dies. When this occurs, the property is held on resulting trust for the settlor, as in
41:
821:
749:. It must also be demonstrated that the contribution was not made for any purpose other than acquiring an equitable interest; in
475:
215:
210:
1488:
651:
281:
506:
471:
are also a category of resulting trusts, but their classification is the subject of much debate and remains ambiguous.
115:
592:, if property is given to somebody who is incapable of acting, it will also be held on resulting trust for the donor.
583:
307:
1532:
63:
573:
502:
468:
453:
413:
135:
110:
763:
372:
80:
547:. Whatever the reason, when a trust fails the property must be passed to someone. This is an application of the
225:
642:
130:
853:(2) The transferor's action will fail if it would be illegal for him to retain any interest in the property
838:
485:
317:
250:
148:
1551:
421:
365:
348:
312:
45:
34:
799:
327:
703:
566:
425:
276:
205:
195:
784:, or where the joint account exists solely so the husband can guarantee the wife's account, as in
706:
prevents the creation of automatic resulting trusts, but does not comment on presumed trusts. In
220:
179:
480:
353:
291:
655:. This is that dissolving a society and distributing property to its members is a matter of
739:
656:
520:
561:. This also occurs where a trust is formed over property which requires formality, but is
8:
872:
416:, for example, have the property reapplied in a different way from other forms of trust.
164:
826:
396:
271:
200:
1528:
1484:
756:
689:
632:
332:
230:
169:
96:
729:
whether jointly or successive - results to the man who advances the purchase money.
557:
286:
240:
235:
1507:
Green, Brian (1980). "The
Dissolution of Unincorporated Non-profit Associations".
1520:
805:
768:
708:
548:
498:
490:
409:
85:
638:
Re West Sussex
Constabulary's Widows, Children and Benevolent (1930) Fund Trusts
447:
404:
255:
755:, for example, a mother transferred a house into her daughter's name to avoid
1545:
843:
745:
699:
602:
399:
created where property is not properly disposed of. It comes from the Latin
76:
660:
474:
The theoretical justification for resulting trusts was discussed by the
597:
509:. Much of the case law is instead based on Megarry's classification.
1498:
Gardner, Simon (1992). "New angles on unincorporated associations".
620:
606:. A fourth suggestion is that the trustees take the surplus, as in
493:
that "equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy". In
174:
83:, who set the standard rule for the rebuttal of presumptions in
576:, the gift may be held on resulting trust for the donor, as in
641:, is that the members of the association hold these rights on
443:
Re Sick and
Funeral Society of St John's Sunday School, Golcar
649:. The more modern view developed from Walton J's judgment in
565:(for example, a land transfer that does not adhere to the
464:
Westdeutsche
Landesbank v Islington London Borough Council
720:. These principles originated with Eyre CB's judgment in
692:
is that it creates a resulting trust on failure, as in
1478:
44:. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are
743:, contributing to domestic expenses will not, as in
516:
Carreras
Rothmans Ltd v Freeman Mathews Treasure Ltd
246:
631:. Unincorporated associations cannot hold rights (
451:where there is doubt concerning his intention. In
1543:
436:The name resulting trust comes from the Latin
537:
440:, meaning to spring back. It was defined in
403:, meaning to spring back, and was defined by
373:
666:
1479:Edwards, Richard; Nigel Stockwell (2007).
627:Linked to this category is the problem of
380:
366:
1291:
1289:
1287:
1007:
1005:
64:Learn how and when to remove this message
75:
40:Relevant discussion may be found on the
1497:
896:
894:
216:Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009
211:Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964
1544:
1519:
1284:
1002:
582:, or submitted to variation under the
1527:(6th ed.). Routledge-Cavendish.
1506:
652:Re Bucks Constabulary Benevolent Fund
891:
17:
13:
612:. The general rule was set out in
579:Chichester Diocesan Fund v Simpson
14:
1563:
1483:(8th ed.). Pearson Longman.
501:, Professor of Equity and Law at
1200:Gardner (1992). pp. 47–48.
503:Queen Mary, University of London
22:
1500:Conveyancer and Property Lawyer
1472:
1460:
1451:
1442:
1433:
1424:
1415:
1406:
1397:
1388:
1379:
1370:
1361:
1352:
1343:
1334:
1325:
1316:
1307:
1298:
1275:
1266:
1257:
1248:
1239:
1230:
1221:
1212:
1203:
1194:
1185:
1176:
1167:
1158:
1149:
1140:
1131:
1122:
1113:
1104:
1095:
1086:
1077:
1068:
1059:
1050:
1041:
1032:
1023:
1014:
993:
984:
975:
551:that "equity abhors a vacuum".
393:Resulting trusts in English law
966:
957:
948:
939:
930:
921:
912:
903:
226:Recognition of Trusts Act 1987
1:
885:
793:
454:Re Vandervell's Trusts (No 2)
431:
523:expressed the principle as:
251:Variation of Trusts Act 1958
7:
663:, usually in equal shares.
629:unincorporated associations
615:Re Trusts of the Abbot Fund
10:
1568:
797:
545:unincorporated association
538:Automatic resulting trusts
422:presumption of advancement
349:Conflict of laws of trusts
800:Illegality in English law
667:Presumed resulting trusts
328:Rule against perpetuities
1331:(1875) 10 Ch App Cas 343
704:Law of Property Act 1925
567:Law of Property Act 1925
532:
426:Law of Property Act 1925
231:Statute of Frauds (1677)
206:Law of Property Act 1925
196:Charitable Uses Act 1601
714:Westdeutsche Landesbank
702:, Section 60(3) of the
495:Westdeutsche Landesbank
221:Public Trustee Act 1906
1281:(1788) 2 Cos Eq Cas 92
1164:Gardner (1992). p. 42.
865:
731:
724:, where he said that:
572:Upon the failure of a
530:
481:Air Jamaica v Charlton
354:Hague Trust Convention
90:
1137:Green (1980). p. 627.
849:
817:Gascoigne v Gascoigne
814:. In addition, as in
726:
525:
459:Lord Browne-Wilkinson
79:
1146:Edwards (2007) p.263
1092:Edwards (2007) p.260
1038:Edwards (2007) p.259
1029:Edwards (2007) p.260
963:Edwards (2007) p.257
945:Edwards (2007) p.256
927:Edwards (2007) p.255
900:Edwards (2007) p.254
879:Midland Bank v Wyatt
740:Lloyds Bank v Rosset
33:factual accuracy is
1466:Hudson (2009) p.489
1448:Hudson (2009) p.488
1439:Hudson (2009) p.487
1421:Hudson (2009) p.484
1412:Hudson (2009) p.483
1376:Hudson (2009) p.481
1349:(1875) LR 20 Eq 328
1340:Hudson (2009) p.479
1295:Hudson (2009) p.478
1272:Hudson (2009) p.477
1263:Hudson (2009) p.476
1236:Hudson (2009) p.473
1209:Hudson (2009) p.471
1191:Hudson (2009) p.467
1182:Hudson (2009) p.466
1128:Hudson (2009) p.465
1083:Hudson (2009) p.464
1056:Hudson (2009) p.462
1020:Hudson (2009) p.463
1011:Hudson (2009) p.456
999:Hudson (2009) p.458
981:Hudson (2009) p.459
972:Hudson (2009) p.457
873:Insolvency Act 1986
811:Mucklestone v Brown
775:Marshall v Crutwell
121:Discretionary trust
1552:English trusts law
1218:(1879) 10 Ch D 474
827:Tinsley v Milligan
718:Vandervell (No. 2)
563:improperly created
507:constructive trust
272:Account of profits
201:Charities Act 2006
116:Constructive trust
91:
1525:Equity and Trusts
1509:Modern Law Review
1490:978-1-4058-4684-4
1481:Trusts and Equity
757:capital gains tax
735:trusts over homes
690:personal property
589:Simpson v Simpson
469:Quistclose trusts
414:charitable trusts
390:
389:
333:Three certainties
323:Trustee liability
97:English trust law
74:
73:
66:
1559:
1538:
1521:Hudson, Alastair
1516:
1503:
1494:
1467:
1464:
1458:
1455:
1449:
1446:
1440:
1437:
1431:
1428:
1422:
1419:
1413:
1410:
1404:
1401:
1395:
1392:
1386:
1383:
1377:
1374:
1368:
1365:
1359:
1356:
1350:
1347:
1341:
1338:
1332:
1329:
1323:
1320:
1314:
1311:
1305:
1302:
1296:
1293:
1282:
1279:
1273:
1270:
1264:
1261:
1255:
1252:
1246:
1243:
1237:
1234:
1228:
1225:
1219:
1216:
1210:
1207:
1201:
1198:
1192:
1189:
1183:
1180:
1174:
1171:
1165:
1162:
1156:
1153:
1147:
1144:
1138:
1135:
1129:
1126:
1120:
1117:
1111:
1108:
1102:
1099:
1093:
1090:
1084:
1081:
1075:
1072:
1066:
1063:
1057:
1054:
1048:
1045:
1039:
1036:
1030:
1027:
1021:
1018:
1012:
1009:
1000:
997:
991:
988:
982:
979:
973:
970:
964:
961:
955:
952:
946:
943:
937:
934:
928:
925:
919:
916:
910:
907:
901:
898:
584:cy-près doctrine
574:charitable trust
558:Vandervell v IRC
382:
375:
368:
287:Equitable remedy
241:Trustee Act 2000
236:Trustee Act 1925
111:Charitable trust
93:
92:
69:
62:
58:
55:
49:
46:reliably sourced
26:
25:
18:
1567:
1566:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1542:
1541:
1535:
1491:
1475:
1470:
1465:
1461:
1456:
1452:
1447:
1443:
1438:
1434:
1429:
1425:
1420:
1416:
1411:
1407:
1402:
1398:
1393:
1389:
1385:(1801) 6 Ves 52
1384:
1380:
1375:
1371:
1366:
1362:
1357:
1353:
1348:
1344:
1339:
1335:
1330:
1326:
1321:
1317:
1312:
1308:
1303:
1299:
1294:
1285:
1280:
1276:
1271:
1267:
1262:
1258:
1253:
1249:
1244:
1240:
1235:
1231:
1226:
1222:
1217:
1213:
1208:
1204:
1199:
1195:
1190:
1186:
1181:
1177:
1172:
1168:
1163:
1159:
1154:
1150:
1145:
1141:
1136:
1132:
1127:
1123:
1118:
1114:
1109:
1105:
1100:
1096:
1091:
1087:
1082:
1078:
1073:
1069:
1064:
1060:
1055:
1051:
1046:
1042:
1037:
1033:
1028:
1024:
1019:
1015:
1010:
1003:
998:
994:
989:
985:
980:
976:
971:
967:
962:
958:
953:
949:
944:
940:
935:
931:
926:
922:
917:
913:
908:
904:
899:
892:
888:
862:
860:
858:
856:
854:
852:
806:equitable maxim
802:
796:
769:Fowkes v Pascoe
752:Sekhon v Alissa
716:and Megarry in
709:Hodgson v Marks
681:Tinker v Tinker
675:Bennet v Bennet
669:
549:equitable maxim
540:
535:
499:Alastair Hudson
491:equitable maxim
434:
410:equitable maxim
386:
277:Breach of trust
144:Resulting trust
86:Fowkes v Pascoe
70:
59:
53:
50:
39:
31:This article's
27:
23:
12:
11:
5:
1565:
1555:
1554:
1540:
1539:
1533:
1517:
1504:
1495:
1489:
1474:
1471:
1469:
1468:
1459:
1450:
1441:
1432:
1423:
1414:
1405:
1396:
1387:
1378:
1369:
1360:
1351:
1342:
1333:
1324:
1315:
1306:
1297:
1283:
1274:
1265:
1256:
1247:
1238:
1229:
1220:
1211:
1202:
1193:
1184:
1175:
1166:
1157:
1148:
1139:
1130:
1121:
1112:
1103:
1094:
1085:
1076:
1067:
1058:
1049:
1040:
1031:
1022:
1013:
1001:
992:
983:
974:
965:
956:
947:
938:
929:
920:
911:
902:
889:
887:
884:
822:House of Lords
798:Main article:
795:
792:
781:Young v Sealey
695:Re Vinogradoff
668:
665:
539:
536:
534:
531:
433:
430:
388:
387:
385:
384:
377:
370:
362:
359:
358:
357:
356:
351:
343:
342:
338:
337:
336:
335:
330:
325:
320:
315:
310:
302:
301:
297:
296:
295:
294:
289:
284:
279:
274:
266:
265:
261:
260:
259:
258:
256:Wills Act 1837
253:
248:
243:
238:
233:
228:
223:
218:
213:
208:
203:
198:
190:
189:
185:
184:
183:
182:
177:
172:
167:
159:
158:
154:
153:
152:
151:
146:
141:
133:
128:
123:
118:
113:
105:
104:
103:Types of trust
100:
99:
72:
71:
30:
28:
21:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1564:
1553:
1550:
1549:
1547:
1536:
1534:0-415-49771-X
1530:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1505:
1501:
1496:
1492:
1486:
1482:
1477:
1476:
1463:
1454:
1445:
1436:
1427:
1418:
1409:
1400:
1391:
1382:
1373:
1364:
1355:
1346:
1337:
1328:
1319:
1310:
1304:1 All ER 1111
1301:
1292:
1290:
1288:
1278:
1269:
1260:
1251:
1242:
1233:
1224:
1215:
1206:
1197:
1188:
1179:
1170:
1161:
1152:
1143:
1134:
1125:
1116:
1107:
1098:
1089:
1080:
1071:
1062:
1053:
1044:
1035:
1026:
1017:
1008:
1006:
996:
987:
978:
969:
960:
951:
942:
933:
924:
915:
906:
897:
895:
890:
883:
881:
880:
874:
870:
869:Tribe v Tribe
864:
848:
846:
845:
844:Tribe v Tribe
840:
836:
831:
829:
828:
823:
819:
818:
813:
812:
807:
801:
791:
789:
788:
787:Anson v Anson
783:
782:
777:
776:
771:
770:
765:
760:
758:
754:
753:
748:
747:
746:Burns v Burns
742:
741:
736:
730:
725:
723:
719:
715:
711:
710:
705:
701:
700:real property
697:
696:
691:
685:
683:
682:
677:
676:
664:
662:
658:
654:
653:
648:
647:bona vacantia
644:
643:purpose trust
640:
639:
634:
630:
625:
623:
622:
617:
616:
611:
610:
605:
604:
603:bona vacantia
599:
593:
591:
590:
585:
581:
580:
575:
570:
568:
564:
560:
559:
552:
550:
546:
529:
524:
522:
518:
517:
510:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
487:
483:
482:
477:
476:Privy Council
472:
470:
466:
465:
460:
456:
455:
449:
445:
444:
439:
429:
427:
423:
417:
415:
411:
406:
402:
398:
394:
383:
378:
376:
371:
369:
364:
363:
361:
360:
355:
352:
350:
347:
346:
345:
344:
341:International
340:
339:
334:
331:
329:
326:
324:
321:
319:
316:
314:
311:
309:
306:
305:
304:
303:
299:
298:
293:
290:
288:
285:
283:
280:
278:
275:
273:
270:
269:
268:
267:
263:
262:
257:
254:
252:
249:
247:
244:
242:
239:
237:
234:
232:
229:
227:
224:
222:
219:
217:
214:
212:
209:
207:
204:
202:
199:
197:
194:
193:
192:
191:
187:
186:
181:
178:
176:
173:
171:
168:
166:
163:
162:
161:
160:
157:Functionaries
156:
155:
150:
147:
145:
142:
140:
138:
134:
132:
131:Purpose trust
129:
127:
126:Express trust
124:
122:
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
108:
107:
106:
102:
101:
98:
95:
94:
88:
87:
82:
78:
68:
65:
57:
47:
43:
37:
36:
29:
20:
19:
16:
1524:
1512:
1508:
1499:
1480:
1473:Bibliography
1462:
1453:
1444:
1435:
1430:4 All ER 236
1426:
1417:
1408:
1399:
1390:
1381:
1372:
1363:
1354:
1345:
1336:
1327:
1318:
1313:1 All ER 244
1309:
1300:
1277:
1268:
1259:
1250:
1241:
1232:
1223:
1214:
1205:
1196:
1187:
1178:
1169:
1160:
1151:
1142:
1133:
1124:
1119:2 All ER 393
1115:
1106:
1097:
1088:
1079:
1070:
1061:
1052:
1043:
1034:
1025:
1016:
995:
986:
977:
968:
959:
950:
941:
936:2 All ER 961
932:
923:
918:3 All ER 205
914:
909:2 All ER 439
905:
877:
868:
866:
850:
842:
834:
832:
825:
824:decision in
815:
809:
803:
785:
779:
773:
767:
761:
750:
744:
738:
732:
727:
721:
717:
713:
707:
693:
686:
679:
673:
670:
661:implied term
650:
646:
636:
626:
619:
613:
607:
601:
594:
587:
577:
571:
556:
553:
541:
526:
514:
511:
494:
479:
473:
462:
452:
441:
437:
435:
418:
400:
392:
391:
149:Secret trust
143:
136:
84:
60:
54:January 2015
51:
32:
15:
867:As seen in
722:Dyer v Dyer
486:Lord Millet
313:Formalities
165:Beneficiary
954:1 WLR 1399
886:References
839:Millett LJ
794:Illegality
448:Megarry VC
432:Definition
405:Megarry VC
137:Quistclose
1457:1 FLR 697
1173:1 WLR 641
1074:1 FLR 601
598:the Crown
438:resultare
401:resultare
170:Protector
42:talk page
1546:Category
1523:(2009).
1403:1 AC 340
1394:1 KB 223
1367:1 QB 636
1322:2 FLR 94
1101:2 Ch 519
764:James LJ
657:contract
633:chattels
621:Re Osoba
609:Re Foord
586:. As in
521:Gibson J
484:, where
446:, where
264:Remedies
188:Statutes
81:James LJ
35:disputed
835:Tinsley
318:History
308:Cy-près
292:Tracing
282:Damages
180:Trustee
175:Settlor
1531:
1487:
1358:Ch 278
1254:Ch 892
1245:W N 68
1110:Ch 326
1065:AC 341
1047:Ch 267
990:Ch 207
833:Since
698:. For
397:trusts
1227:P 136
533:Types
478:, in
461:, in
300:Other
139:trust
1529:ISBN
1485:ISBN
1155:Ch 1
395:are
841:in
766:in
600:as
569:).
1548::
1513:43
1511:.
1286:^
1004:^
893:^
882:.
847::
684:.
624:.
519:,
1537:.
1515:.
1502:.
1493:.
420:"
381:e
374:t
367:v
89:.
67:)
61:(
56:)
52:(
48:.
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
