Exam 3: Implied Trusts
The common law recognises the mechanism of the trust.
False
Which type of the two types of resulting trust outlined by Megarry in Re Vandervell's Trusts (No 2) is outlined here: 'any express trust which accidentally failed to dispose of the entire equitable interest in property would not contain evidence of the settlor's intentions as to what should occur to the remaining non-disposed part of the equitable interest.'
The type of resulting trust outlined in the statement you provided is known as an "automatic resulting trust." In Re Vandervell's Trusts (No 2), Megarry J distinguished between two types of resulting trusts: automatic resulting trusts and presumed resulting trusts.
An automatic resulting trust arises by operation of law when an express trust fails to dispose of the entire beneficial interest. This can happen when the trust instrument does not completely deal with all the equitable interests, or when the trust purposes fail. In such cases, the remaining equitable interest that has not been disposed of 'results' back to the settlor (or the settlor's estate if they have died) by default, without any need to demonstrate the settlor's intention regarding the non-disposed part of the equitable interest.
In contrast, a presumed resulting trust arises from a presumption of the settlor's intention. It typically occurs when property is transferred to another person, and it is presumed that the transferor did not intend to gift the beneficial interest, so the property is held in trust for the transferor. This presumption can be rebutted by evidence showing that a gift was indeed intended.
The statement you provided describes a situation where there is no evidence of the settlor's intentions regarding the non-disposed part of the equitable interest, which aligns with the concept of an automatic resulting trust, as the trust property automatically reverts to the settlor without the need to establish any presumed intention.
What are Quistclose trusts?
Quistclose trusts are a particular type of trust that arises in the context of a loan where the lender specifies that the loaned funds must be used for a specific purpose. The concept originates from the landmark case Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1970] AC 567 (HL), a decision of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom.
In the Quistclose case, Quistclose Investments lent money to Rolls Razor Ltd to pay dividends to its shareholders. The money was deposited in a separate bank account, and it was agreed that if the dividends were not paid, the money would be returned to Quistclose. Rolls Razor went into liquidation before the dividends were paid, and Barclays Bank, which held a debenture over Rolls Razor's assets, claimed the money. The House of Lords held that the money was held on a trust for Quistclose and could not be claimed by Barclays as part of the assets of Rolls Razor.
The essence of a Quistclose trust is that the lender gives money to a borrower for a specific purpose, and if that purpose fails, the money does not become part of the borrower's general assets but is held in trust to be returned to the lender. This arrangement creates a fiduciary relationship between the borrower (as trustee) and the lender (as beneficiary) with respect to the use of the funds.
Quistclose trusts are an example of a resulting trust, which is a form of trust that arises by operation of law when property is transferred under circumstances that give rise to an inference or presumption that the transferor did not intend to give the beneficial interest in the property to the transferee. In the case of a Quistclose trust, the presumption is that the lender did not intend to part with the beneficial interest in the funds except for the specified purpose.
The Quistclose trust has been recognized and applied in various common law jurisdictions, and it serves as a useful tool for lenders to protect their funds in the event of the borrower's insolvency. It also provides a mechanism for prioritizing the lender's claim over those of other creditors, as the funds held in trust are not available for distribution to the general body of creditors.
However, the precise legal nature and the requirements for establishing a Quistclose trust have been the subject of much debate and judicial consideration. Courts have looked at the intention of the parties, the degree of control retained by the lender, and the circumstances under which the funds were advanced to determine whether such a trust exists.
What were the two types of resulting trust that Lord Browne-Wilkinson outlined?
In which case did Megarry J categorise resulting trusts as presumed and automatic?
What did Lord Upjohn emphasise about how a presumption of a resulting trust worked in Vandervell v IRC (1967) 2 AC 291?
In Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC (1996) AC 669 how many categories of resulting trust did Lord Browne-Wilkinson outline?
In which case were the approaches of Megarry J and Lord Browne-Wilkinson arguably linked?
Which section of the Equality Act 2010 will abolish the presumption of advancement?
Under which circumstances does the presumption of advancement apply?
Under Lord Browne-Wilkinson's first category of resulting trust what does equity presume?
Does Lord Browne-Wilkinson believe that resulting trusts arise from the parties' intentions?
It is because of the label of a person's profession or employment that makes such a person a fiduciary.
Filters
- Essay(0)
- Multiple Choice(0)
- Short Answer(0)
- True False(0)
- Matching(0)