Of course it's just a tree.  What does it look like ?
RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives
  
 
 

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

 
<== Previous message       Back to index        Next message ==>
Sender:
Charles Mitchell
Date:
Fri, 10 May 2002 12:33:29 +0100
Re:
Resulting trusts and shared homes

 

Carlton v Goodman [2002] EWCA Civ 545 - available on-line at www2.bailii.org - is a shared homes case in which the CA had to decide whether the legal owner of property held it on resulting trust for her deceased partner's estate.

At paras 23 ff Mummery LJ notes the Birks and Chambers v Swadling / Lord Millett v Lord B-W debate vis-a-vis the true nature of RTs, but concludes that it doesn't matter who is right because the result would be the same either way.

This debate is often portrayed as a head to head between two versions of the presumption which is made about the transferor's intention when he transfers property for no consideration -'transferor didn't intend to benefit recipient' vs 'transferor intended recipient to be his trustee'. But in fact Lord B-W says something slightly different from the second of these in Westdeutsche at [1996] AC 669, 708, namely that he thinks the key question is whether it is 'the common intention of the transferor and the recipient that the recipient should be the transferor's trustee'. And in Carlton v Goodman, Mummery LJ - along with Laws and Ward LJJ - follow this, referring to the common intention of the parties as being the relevant intention in their judgments.

In principle, though, this can't be right, and it stems from a failure to distinguish properly between resulting trusts and common intention constructive trusts. In principle, the only person whose intention should count in a resulting trust case is the intention of the transferor, whichever of the two presumptions is thought correct - a point made clearly and convincingly by Robert Chambers in his book on Resulting Trusts at p 37, text to nn 206-9, and again by John Mee in his book, The Property Rights of Cohabitees, at pp 39-43.

 

Charles

__________________________________
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


<== Previous message       Back to index        Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "


     
Webspace provided by UCC   »
»
»
»
»
For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.
only search restitution site

 
 Contact the webmaster !