Constructive Trusts

Stack v Dowden - Joint JTs but no declaration of BI
1. Post Stack
  1. Le Foe - Mortgage payments were relevant under Midland Bank v Cooke approach
  2. Oxley v Hiscock - greater willingness to look at the realities of the parties' dealings. Chadwick's cock up
  3. Adekunle v Ritchie - Stack applies to mother/son
  4. Fowler v Baron - JTs with no declaration as to BI. RTs no longer appropriate
  5. 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
2. Hale's leading judgement
  1. presume legal JT = equitable JT
    1. person wanting otherwise must prove it
  2. common intention may be express, inferred or imputed
    1. Neuberger warns against imputation
  3. look at the whole course of dealings
    1. Rosset standards too high
3. critiques
  1. 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
  2. Hayton - Gissing conflates PE with CT
  3. Nottingham LC - 'to presume a trust uneccessarily... [allows] the LC to construe any man out of his estate'
Pre Stack
1. Pettitt - contributor's to the purchase price will have a beneficial interest
2. Gissing - common intention + detrimental reliance = CT
3. Midland Bank v Cooke - look at the whole course of dealings
4. 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
5. Springette v Defoe - in the absence of agreement, arrangement or understand RT applies
6. Eves - Intention is an objective test

Next up

Constructive Trusts

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by Vicky Babs almost 11 years ago