This document summarizes key aspects of resulting trusts and circumstances where resulting trusts can arise or be rebutted. It discusses two main circumstances where resulting trusts arise: 1) where voluntary payments are made for property in another's name, and 2) where property is transferred on express trusts but the beneficial interest is not fully declared. It also outlines ways the presumption of a resulting trust can be rebutted, including by evidence of contrary intention, evidence disproving a gift, or where the original purpose was illegal.

1. EQUITY & TRUST II:
CIRCUMSTANCES OF
RESULTING TRUST
MEMBERS:
1) NUR MAHIRAH BT MOHAMAD TAHIR (1120445)
2) NURULHASRIAH BT HASSAN BUSERI (1120448)
3) HANIS SYAHIRAH BT MOHD ZULKEFLI (1120453)

2. RESULTING TRUST
0An arrangement whereby one person holds property
for the benefit of another, which is implied by a court
in certain cases where a person transfers property to
another and gives him or her legal title to it but does
not intend him or her to have an equitable or
beneficial interest in the property.

3. CIRCUMSTANCES OF RESULTING TRUST
0 In the case of Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington
London Borough Council, Lord Browne-Wilkinson identified two
circumstances in which a resulting trust would arise:
.
First circumstance:
Where A makes a voluntary payments to B or pays (wholly or
in part) for the purchase of property which is vested either in
B alone or in the joint names of A and B, there is
presumption that A did not intend to make a gift to B: the
money or property is held on trust for A (if he is sold
provider of the money) or in case of a joint property by A
and B in shares proportionate to their contribution.

4. Ali BudiCar
RM100, 000
Paid
Used
Holding the property
as a trustee
Beneficiary
or, Ali & Budi shared to
pay the car

5. 0In the case of Bull v Bull:
0A mother and the son jointly purchased a house
which was conveyed in the name of the son alone.
0Upon the son marriage, they agreed that mother
would occupy two rooms and the rest of the house
would be occupied by the son and his wife.
0Held, each is entitled in equity to an undivided share
in the house, the share of being in proportion to his
or her respective contribution.

6. Second circumstance
• Where A transfers property to B on express trusts, but the
trust declared do not exhaust the whole beneficial interest.
• Both types of resulting trust are traditionally regarded as
examples of trusts giving effect to the common intention of
the parties.
• A resulting trusts is not imposed by law against the
intention of the trustee (as is a constructive trust) but gives
effect to his presumed intention.

7. Land
Trees
• The father give
the whole land
to his son
except for the
trees. So as a
result the son
has to hold the
trees on behalf
of the father.

8. REBUTTING RESULTING TRUST
By evidence inconsistent
with its application
By the presumption of
advancement

9. 1) Inconsistent Evidence
0 Need to decide whether the evidence indicate that the
real purchaser in fact wanted the other to take
beneficially.
0 It is because the transferor may be intended an outright
gift, or transfer the property by way of loan, or other
contractual arrangement.

10. Fowkes v Pascoe
0 Mrs Baker bought two sums of stock. One was put in the names
of herself and a young lodger called Mr Pascoe, who she treated
like a grandson. The other was in her and her friend’s name. It
was argued by the executor, Fowkes, that when Mrs Baker died
Pascoe held the stock on resulting trust.
0 Held: James LJ held that although a presumption of a resulting
trust applied, it was rebutted on the facts, because plainly Mrs
Baker intended to make a gift to Mr Pascoe.

11. 0 Gibbs CJ in the Australian High Court’s decision in the
case of Muschinski v Dodds explained the basis on
how it to be decided (the evidence to establish the
intention of the real purchaser)
0 “….comprise the acts and declarations of the parties
before or at the time of purchase….or so thereafter as
to constitute a part of the transaction”

12. 2) Presumption of Advancement
Father & Child
Mother & Child
Husband & Wife
Wife & Husband
It arise where certain relationship
exist, where the donor or
purchaser is under an obligation
recognized in equity to support or
provide for the transferee.
Eg: husband-wife, or in loco
parentis ( father-child)
Presumption: the transferor
intend to make a gift for the
advancement of the transfree.

13. a) Father and child
0 The presumption is usually stronger.
0 Re Roberts:
• a father took an insurance policy on the life of his son and paid
the premiums on it. it was contended after the father’s death
that the amount paid by way of premiums ( by the father in his
lifetime and by his estate until the son’s death) were
recoverable by his estate by means of a lien over the policy
moneys.
• The court held that the presumption of advancement prevail
and that each premium paid by the father during the lifetime
was separate advancement to the son.

14. b) Mother and child
0The presumption of advancement fade
 presumption of resulting trust prevail.
0Rationale: Mother is not obliged to provide the
child.
0Sekhon v Alissa
• mother contribute some £22,500 to daughter to
purchase a house.
• Held: there was then a resulting trust in favour of
the mother.

15. c) Husband and wife
0Presumption applies where a husband make a
transfer to his wife in the name of the wife.
0Re Eykyn’s Trust, Mallins VC stated
“The law …is perfectly settled when a husband
transfers money/property into the name of his wife
only, then the presumption is, that it is intended as a
gift or advancement to the wife absolutely at once,…”

16. d) Wife and husband
0No presumption of advancement.
0Wife  husband: not negative the inference of
resulting trust.

17. 1
• By evidence of the actual intention of the party by
providing the purchase money
• Sabrina Loo Cheng Suan v Eugene Khoo Onn Jin
2
• Where there is evidence to prove that no gift was intended
• Warren v Gurney
3
• There was illegal purpose
• Tinsley v Milligan
REBUTTING THE PRESUMPTION
OF ADVANCEMENT

18. By evidence of the actual intention of the
party by providing the purchase money
0 Sabrina Loo Cheng Suan v Eugene Khoo Onn Jin
• Doctrine of presumption of advancement is a rebuttable
presumption and can be rebutted
• When? If the defendant can show from the act and
circumstances prevailing BEFORE and AT THE TIME of
acquisition and transfer of the property
• What? There was common intention between him & the
plaintiff that it should be otherwise
1

19. 0 Warren v Gurney
• The father purchased a house in the name of the other
daughter but subsequently declared that the property
was to be enjoyed by his three daughters in equal
shares.
• This declaration and the fact that the father continued to
retain the title deeds, were SUFFICIENT to rebut the
presumption of advancement.
Where there is evidence to prove that no
gift was intended
2

20. 0 Tinsley v Milligan
0 T and M carried on a joint business. A property was
acquired with all of the funds needed for the down payment
and mortgage instalments coming from the profits of the
business. Title to the property went into T’s name alone to
facilitate M’s purpose of making fraudulent social security
claims. When T and M fell out, T sought an order for
possession. M claimed a share under a resulting trust.
0 Issue: whether she could make this claim given the unlawful
purpose that led to title being in T’s name.
There was illegal purpose3

21. 0 Lord Browne-Wilkinson said:
0 ‘A party to an illegality can recover by virtue of a legal or
equitable property interest if, but only if, he can establish
his title without relying on his own illegality. In cases
where the presumption of advancement applies, the
plaintiff is faced with the presumption of gift and
therefore cannot claim under a resulting trust unless
and until he has rebutted that presumption of gift: for
those purposes the plaintiff does have to rely on the
underlying illegality and therefore fails.’
*page 93