The nature of the presumption of a resulting trust has generated a
controversy, which has created two schools of thoughts. Both schools of
thoughts claim that resulting trusts give effect to the presumed intention,
positive or negative. But in this paper, I take on a quite different view of
point that whether a lack of intent to benefit or a positive intent to create a
trust is not related with the presumption of the resulting trusts, which, I
believe, will make it interesting to general readers. Further, this paper
thinks the presumption of a resulting trust as circumstances or facts based on presumption,
legal presumption and thinks that it can be rebutted by evidential
circumstances, which are helpful to ascertain the grounds for imposing a
resulting trust. In a word, exploring the nature of the presumption of
resulting trusts will aid in the understanding the grounds upon which a
resulting trust is imposed. This article proceeds under four parts: the role of
intention in the presumption of the resulting trusts; the circumstances or
facts based on presumption; a legal presumption; rebutting by evidential
circumstances.
Cite this paper
Chen, X. (2014). Understanding the Nature of the Presumption of Resulting Trusts. Open Access Library Journal, 1, e593. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1100593.
See Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC (1996) AC 669,708. See Swadling, “A Hard Look at Hodgson v Marks”, Rickett and Grantham, “Resulting Trusts—A Rather Limited Doctrine”, Payne, “Quistclose and Resulting Trusts”. Peter Birks and Francis Rose, Restitution and Equity, Vol. I, Mansfield Press, 4.
Birks and Chambers, etc. (1997) Hold This Restitutionary View. “All Resulting Trusts Come into Being Because the Provider of Property Did Not Intend to Benefit the Recipient.” See Chamber, R., Resulting Trusts, Oxford.
(2000) Trusts Which Are Inferred from Doubtful Words, for Example, (Sometimes Called “Precatory Trusts”) Are Therefore Express, Declared Trusts. In Such Circumstance, the Court Construes the Evidence Available and Concludes That the Settler Sufficiently Manifested an Intention to Declare the Trust. In: Birks, P. and Rose, F., Eds., Restitution and Equity, Vol. 1, Mansfield Press, Toronto, 8.
Simpson, E. (2000) On the Nature of Resulting Trusts: The Vandervell Litigation Revisited. In: Birks, P. and Rose, F., Eds., Restitution and Equity, Vol. 1, Mansfield Press, Toronto, 21.
The Presumption Which Runs Contrary to the Presumption of a Resulting Trust Is That People in Some Certain Relationships Will Be Presumed, Subject to the Presentation of Evidence to the Contrary, to Have Made an Outright Gift to the Recipient. Therefore, in Such Situations There Will Be No Presumption of a Resulting Trust Arising in Favour of the Grantor. If the Transfer Was Made before s 199 of the Equality Act 2010 Comes into Force.