Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Decided last summer by Nicholas Strauss QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, Lohia v Lohia has now been reported in [2001] Wills & Trusts Law Reports. At 110-113, he affirms Robert Chambers' analysis of LPA 1925, s 60(3), in _Resulting Trusts_ pp 18-19: i.e. he agrees with Robert that the effect of the sub-section was to abolish the presumption of resulting trust which arose prior to the 1925 legislation, on a voluntary conveyance of land. He disagrees with counsel that Lord Browne-Wilkinson's remarks in Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340 at 371 support the view that the presumption was not affected by s 60(3). And he considers that "the countervailing consideration, that s 60(3) on this view would change the law with regard to real property alone, and therefore would lead to different conclusions in relation to real and personal property in the same situation, does not seem to me to be a factor of sufficient potency to displace the natural construction of the section".

_____________________________________________
Dr Charles Mitchell
Lecturer in Law
School of Law
King's College London
Strand
LONDON WC2R 2LS

tel: 020 7848 2290
fax: 020 7848 2465