![]() |
RDG
online Restitution Discussion Group Archives |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||
|
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
__________________________________ tel: 020 7848 2290 <== Previous message Back to index Next message ==> |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
» » » » » |
|
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |