Equity and Trust Law

Brief: 189084

Delivery Date: 18/08/06

Title: “ There is no individual convincing account for the operation of the ensuing trust.. ” Discuss



It is submitted that the ensuing trust is a signifier of implied trust that is created by the illation of the jurisprudence in fortunes in which the actions of the parties concerned and the features of the dealing between them suggests a legal purpose to set up a trust relationship. Resulting trusts resemble express trusts from many positions, in peculiar because purpose is a requirement to the creative activity of the former manner of trust, that said nevertheless, purpose in the instance of a resulting trust is presumed by the jurisprudence to be between the parties alternatively of being straight proved by agencies of grounds before the tribunal. [ 1 ]

In kernel a ensuing trust occurs where although legal rubric becomes vested in a legal guardian, just rubric remains vested in the trust trustor. A resulting trust will typically originate in state of affairss where it would be deemed in struggle with the cardinal rules of equity for a individual in which belongings becomes vested to keep that belongings and bask legal rights over it otherwise than as a legal legal guardian with the commensurate duties. [ 2 ]

By manner of illustration, in fortunes where belongings is purchased in the name of one party, but the purchase monetary value is settled by another party, a resulting trust is created in favor of the individual who really paid the consideration. A resulting trust may besides be created in a state of affairs where a contract is formed for the sale of existent estate belongings. In this instance a trust will ensue to the purchase at the point of completion of the contract, and the seller thenceforth stands as legal guardian for the buyer until the conveyance of the legal estate is later made. Resulting trusts may happen in a assortment of state of affairss. For illustration, where an express trust fails due to an absence of formalities, or in fortunes where completion is non possible ( known as dispositive failure ) , a resulting trust may originate. Furthermore, in the instance of an evident gift, where a given of promotion is missing ( viz. a given that the purpose was to do a gift ) , equity rule dictates the decision that the giver must hold been bereft of the purpose to give up his full involvement in the belongings in inquiry.

It is contended that ensuing trusts most frequently arise in fortunes where one party fails efficaciously to reassign his good involvement in the belongings concerned with the trust. This may be an inadvertent or calculated happening andRe Vandervell ‘s Trusts ( No..2 )[ 3 ],for illustration, offers an erudite and lighting treatment of the classification.. This instance is discussed below.

Discussion of the conceptual foundations of the ensuing trust

Resulting trusts were non frequently capable to elaborate analysis during the 20th century, presumptively because until the comparatively recent yesteryear, the jurisprudence refering ensuing trusts was considered to be mostly settled. Standard textbooks on equity and trusts frequently provide little more than a list of state of affairss in which ensuing trusts may originate and avoid deeper remark on the law that underpins and specify their being. It is argued, nevertheless, that there is in fact a surprising famine of understanding as to the exact signifier of the rules that govern the operation of ensuing trusts, in peculiar sing the cardinal issue as to whether ensuing trusts arise by a procedure of jurisprudence or on the footing of a presumed purpose to set up a trust. It is hence suggested by this observer that an academic polemic persists over the precise conceptual foundations and principle for ensuing trusts – specifically sing the purpose the giver must possess. [ 4 ]

Many important observers have entered the argument, including for illustration Professor Birks inAn Introduction to the Law of Restitution[ 5 ] . However it is contended there are basically two cantonments of legal idea on the issue. Lord Browne-Wilkinson presenting the taking bulk judgement inWestdeutsche Bank Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London BC[ 6 ] and academic observer William Swadling [ 7 ] have endorsed the position that a resulting trust is created on the footing of a given of purpose to make a trust which favours the giver: for illustration where Ten has the purpose to give Z Property to Y so that Yttrium can keep it for X.

A different attack is supported by such legal academic observers as Robert Chambers, in his bookResulting Trusts[ 8 ] and in instances such asTwinsectra Ltd V Yardley and Others[ 9 ] Potter LJ and Lord Millet argue in the option that it is in fact an absence of purpose to profit the receiver that serves to set up a trust, for illustration where Ten transportations Z Property to Y, but does non exhibit an purpose to profit Y. Further authorization on this issue can be found in instances such asAir Jamaica Ltd & A ; Ors v Charlton. & A ; Ors. [ 10 ] . In such an case, where there is a deficiency of contradictory grounds, the trust returns the money to X on the given that he did non desire Y to profit.


Of class, it is submitted that in many state of affairss the consequence may be the same whichever line is taken. However, it may be forcefully contended that the difference between the two attacks may be extremely important in visible radiation of the fact that in many instances it may be highly difficult to turn out existent purpose but however much easier to refute the legal given.

There is small uncertainty that the attack advocated by Robert Chambers would necessarily ensue in the creative activity of significantly more resulting trusts than that endorsed by Swadlinget Al. In support of Swadling’s preferable line inWestdeutsche v. Islington BCLord Browne-Wilkinson was obviously fearful that chase of the option would function to offer every claimant a touchable proprietary right in bankruptcy and therefore make a allegedopen-floodgatesissue. This would, it is argued consequence in immensely more claimants going secured creditors, with the consequence that the rights and protection enjoyed by secured creditors would be diluted in pattern.

Lord Browne-Wilkinson did look to reason inWestdeutschethat the remedial constructive trust might supply a more appropriate model for the support of restitutionary redresss than the resulting trust. Lord Browne-Wilkinson opined:

‘the tribunal may, by manner of redress enforce a constructive trust on a suspect who wittingly retains the belongings of which the claimant has been unjustly deprived.. Since the redress can be tailored to the fortunes of the peculiar instance, guiltless 3rd parties would non be prejudiced and restitutionary defense mechanisms, such as alteration of place, are capable of being given effect.’ [ 11 ]

However, at this point it should be noted thatWestdeutsche v. Islington BChas been capable to extended unfavorable judgment in the academic imperativeness and from some positions it can so be found desiring. The loan dealing in inquiry inWestdeutschewould under normal market conditions have earned compound involvement for the lender.. It could be argued that by declining to allow the loaner inWestdeutschecompound involvement the House of Lords efficaciously failed to allow full damages to the loaner. It is accordingly an easy measure to deduce that the borrower in inquiry inWestdeutschewas hence inexcusably enriched at the disbursal of the loaner by the value of the compound involvement on the loan.

Lord Browne-Wilkinson appeared to impart stoic support to the rules of following as established inRe Diplock[ 12 ] in theWestdeutscheinstance. It can be inferred from this that his Lordship accepted the judicial admission that a fiducial relationship must be before tracing could be permitted in equity.

Frequently this will non arouse undue trouble, because as Millett LJ noted in instances such as the earlyBanque Belge pour l’EtrangerVHambrouck[ 13 ] and the more recentAgip ( Africa ) Ltd V Jackson[ 14 ] larceny is typically perpetrated by an employee who enjoys a fiducial place, nevertheless, it may ensue in jobs if larceny is committed by a alien.

The judicial admission that a fiducial relationship exists has been said non to be necessary in footings of cardinal rule, and it is submitted that most governments that hinge upon it are historical in nature. However in theWestdeutscheinstance Lord Browne-Wilkinson seemed to emphasize the importance of the factor.

In visible radiation of his Lordship’s sentiment as to the lender’s averment that it had taken stairss to retain the just rubric, it is difficult to understand the agencies by which an just involvement could be established at all without the creative activity of a trust, given that it makes no legal sense to discourse the construct of just rubric in any fortunes where one party enjoys absolute ownership of property..

That said, it can be argued that a resulting trust is non an apt vehicle for the grant of damages, due to the fact that the fiducial relationship that it necessarily establishes is a non an wholly appropriate side consequence of that device, presuming that the recipient’s scruples is unaffected. It is submitted that it would hold been possible to accomplish full damages by widening the legal power to present compound involvement to cover the relevant contingencies ( money had and received ) . It appears that the old, established governments persuaded Lord Browne-Wilkinson against prosecuting this signifier of attack, nevertheless he may hold taken a different line in other fortunes, so it may good be that this is an country of jurisprudence that should be considered for reform by Parliament. If it was possible to present compound involvement on a claim for “money had and received” complainants could be entitled to a grant of full damages avoiding the proprietary effect of enforcing a ensuing trust which may frequently be unwanted in the fortunes.

ALSO READ  Market strategy of Starbucks today

Where a resulting trust is created nevertheless, the beneficiary is considered a fiducial for the trustor and the former is bound to return the money that has been received and besides to put the amount. As in such instances asA-G for Hong Kong V Reid[ 15 ] the trustor is thenceforth entitled to claim rubric to the investings. However, if the donee’s scruples remains unaffected it is submitted that this may non be an just solution. Furthermore as Lord Browne-Wilkinson noted in theWestdeutscheinstance because the trustor remains proprietor of the money in equity he or she can follow into any belongings purchased with the money and this may do far-reaching and inappropriate effects. While the jurisprudence in this field is far from perfect, on this footing and by and large on the strength of Millet’s statement in hisLaw Quarterly ReviewarticleTracing the Returns of Fraud[ 16 ] it is argued that the usage of a resulting trust as a agency of allowing damages may non turn out to be a Panacea.

Trusts are typically classified as eitherexpress( viz. those established by purpose ) orconstructive( viz. those established by affairs other than purpose ) and this would look to go forth small infinite for a 3rd category ofensuingtrusts.. It is submitted that the class of constructive trusts should possibly hence be expanded to include ensuing trusts as another species of trust established by the operation of the jurisprudence. [ 17 ]

The term ‘resulting’ itself causes some trouble. As opposed to the footingsexpressandconstructive, which refer to the manner of creative activity of the trust, the termensuingrefers to the consequence of the trust, depicting that one party has received an plus from another party and that the trust preserves the good ownership the latter party. Professor Birks has branded the classification of trusts as eitherexpress,constructiveorensuingas a “bent classification” . In brooding in the anomalousnesss of the jurisprudence in this field he argued that:

‘When we say that trusts are express, implied, ensuing, or constructive, the word “resulting” is on its face the uneven adult male out, for “resulting” indicates that the good involvementresalit( leap back ) , and the other footings are focused on the manner of creative activity, non the location of the good interest.’ [ 18 ]

Chambers besides notes [ 19 ] that Professor Birks argues that even show and constructive trusts can be ensuing in form, signifier and consequence. [ 20 ] It is submitted nevertheless that the ensuing trust is non designed to include trusts which possibly constructive or express but which however have a ensuing effect.. Alternatively it is suggested that the intent of the ensuing trust categorization is to group certain trusts on the footing of the events that serve to set up those trusts. Possibly the main country of dissension between academic observers and members of the judiciary concerns the precise nature of those set uping factors.. As a effect of this uncertainness it is sometimes hard to find, in a consistent manner, why a resulting trust has non been categorised as either a constructive or an so an express trust.

Megarry’s categorization of ensuing trusts

Megarry J set out two chief categories of ensuing trust. InRe Vandervell ‘s Trusts ( No. 2 )[ 21 ] , Megarry J drew a differentiation between automatic and presumed ensuing trusts, on the undermentioned lines:

“ ( a ) The first category of instance is where the transportation to B is non made on any trust… there is a rebuttable given that B holds on ensuing trust for A. The inquiry is non one of the automatic effects of a dispositive failure by A, but one of given: the belongings has been carried to B, and from the absence of consideration and any given of promotion B is presumed non merely to keep the full involvement on trust, but besides to keep the good involvement for A perfectly. The given therefore establishes both that B is to take on trust and besides what that trust is. Such resulting trusts may be called “ presumed ensuing trusts ” .

( B ) The 2nd category of instance is where the transportation to B is made on trusts which leave some or all of the good involvement undisposed of. Here B automatically holds on ensuing trust for A to the extent that the good involvement has non been carried to him or others. The ensuing trust here does non depend on any purposes or givens, but is the automatic effect of A ‘s failure to dispose of what is vested in him. Sinceex hypothesithe transportation is on trust, the ensuing trust does non set up the trust but simply carries back to A the good involvement that has non been disposed of. Such resulting trusts may be called “ automatic resulting trusts ” .”

ALSO READ  The Future of Law in Protecting Business Reputation

This categorization was considered to be unequivocal until Lord Browne-Wilkinson laid down his ain categorization in theWestdeutscheinstance, which although similar to that of Megarry was somewhat less expansive in its range.

FromRe EVTRtoTwinsectra

Prior toWestdeutsche, other determinations were to a great extent influenced by, if non predicated on Megarry’s suggested theoretical account for ensuing trusts. In the instanceRe EVTR[ 22 ] Dillion LJ considered what might be labelled as the fictional justification for ensuing trusts that they are designed to give full consequence to the settlor’s wants, in comparing the ensuing trust to the constructive trust. Dillion LJ theorised that:

“As an just mechanism to justify the just involvements of donees under express or ensuing trusts, it is a long constituted rule of equity that, if a individual who is a legal guardian receives money or belongings because of, or in regard of, trust belongings, he will keep what he receives as a constructive legal guardian on the trusts of that original trust belongings. Similarly, a 3rd party other than a bona fide buyer for value without notice, who, through breach of trust, receives belongings topic to an express, ensuing or constructive trust will keep it and its traceable merchandises as a constructive legal guardian on the trusts impacting such belongings. Finally, a individual non within such two classs, but who has obtained or enhanced his involvement in property…will be constructive legal guardian of the whole or portion thereof where it would be conscienceless for him to move inconsistently with the property..”

Furthermore, as Peter Gibson J stressed in the instanceCarreras Rothmans Ltd V Freeman Matthews Treasure Ltd[ 23 ] the practical consequence of following Megarry’s analytical theoretical account is in fact to go forth the good involvement in a province of suspense until either the intent of the trust is fulfilled or it fails. It is submitted nevertheless that the job with this irregular line is that it does non decently acknowledge the function that the ensuing trust dramas in the greater strategy of equity. In add-on it fails to explicate why the money in inquiry is non simply held on a resulting trust for the loaner. These points were considered by Lord Millett inTwinsectra Ltd V Yardley and Others[ 24 ] , which was chiefly concerned with the nature of the alleged “Quistclosetrust” ( from the instanceQuistclose Investments Ltd. V Rolls Razor Ltd. [ 25 ] ) and the demands for its creative activity. A “Quistclose trust” describes an agreement whereby a loan is made to a borrower for a specific intent and on footings on which the borrower is non free to utilize the money for any other intent. Such an agreement may make fiducial duties on the portion of the receiver of the money which will be enforced by a tribunal of equity.

Reasoning Remarks

In his judgement inTwinsectra Ltd V Yardley and Others,[ 26 ] while sharing a great trade of common land with Chambers, Lord Millett did non back that observers ultimate analysis as to the roots of the ensuing trust, preferring the stance of Ho and Smart in “Reinterpreting the Quistclose Trust: A Critique of Chambers’ Analysis” . [ 27 ] It is the decision of this observer that, given that Chambers’ attack offers no easy solution to instances affecting non-contractual payment and that it seems to belie Lord Wilberforce ‘s averment inQuistclose[ 28 ] that the borrower ‘s duty is fiducial in nature and non merely contractual, Lord Millett’s concluding as to the nature of the ensuing trust should now be preferred as the most dependable modeling of the modern jurisprudence.

Having considered a assortment of governments and theories, in amount it is submitted that the analysis of ensuing trusts provided by Lord Millett inTwinsectrarises above the polemic to stand as the most consistent and important statement of the form of the jurisprudence to day of the month.



Chambers R. ,Resulting Trusts, ( 1997 ) Clarendon Press.

Birks P. ,An Introduction to the Law of Restitution( 1989 ) , Oxford.

Todd P,Cases & A ; Materials on Equity and Trusts, ( 2000 ) Blackstones Press Ltd.

Sydenham A. ,Equity and Trusts, ( 2000 ) Sweet and Maxwell.

Chalmers R. ,Resulting Trusts in Canada ( Part I ): hypertext transfer protocol: //shelburne.butterworths.co.uk/truststaxestates/articles/dataitem.asp? ID=16981 & A ; tid=7

Parker D.et Al,Parker and Mellows: The Modern Law of Trusts, ( 2003 ) Sweet and Maxwell

Hudson A,Understanding Equity and Trust Law, ( 2004 ) Cavendish Printing Ltd.

P Birks, ‘Equity, Conscience, and Unjust Enrichment’ ( 1999 ) 23Melbourne UL Rev1

Hayton, D..J. ,The Law of Trusts, ( 2004 ) Sweet and Maxwell Ltd

Swadling W,The Quistclose Trust, ( 2004 ) Hart Publishing.