Zusammenfassung der Ressource
Constructive Trusts
- Stack v Dowden - Joint JTs
but no declaration of BI
- Post Stack
- Le Foe - Mortgage payments were relevant
under Midland Bank v Cooke approach
- Oxley v Hiscock - greater willingness to look at the
realities of the parties' dealings. Chadwick's cock up
- Adekunle v Ritchie - Stack applies to mother/son
- Fowler v Baron - JTs with no declaration
as to BI. RTs no longer appropriate
- Kernott v Jones - cohabitees. decided what was 'just
and fair' given the whole course of dealings. Too broad,
no contact for 12yrs so what course of dealings
- Hale's leading judgement
- presume legal JT = equitable JT
- person wanting otherwise must prove it
- common intention may be
express, inferred or imputed
- Neuberger warns against imputation
- look at the whole
course of dealings
- Rosset standards too high
- critiques
- Swaddling - CTs are Denning's mutant child, based on a
Diplock quote taken out of context. Dangerous that HoL
followed CA without proper explanation. Should consider
RTs more closely. Clarification needed
- Hayton - Gissing conflates PE with CT
- Nottingham LC - 'to presume a trust uneccessarily...
[allows] the LC to construe any man out of his estate'
- Pre Stack
- Pettitt - contributor's to the purchase
price will have a beneficial interest
- Gissing - common intention +
detrimental reliance = CT
- Midland Bank v Cooke - look at
the whole course of dealings
- Lloyd's Bank v Rosset - propery in one person's
name - must be a common intention to share the BI -
trict approach, only direct contributions to decide BI
- Springette v Defoe - in the absence of agreement,
arrangement or understand RT applies
- Eves - Intention is an objective test