1. Incomplete disposal of beneficial interest
   1. A transfers property to B on express trust, but trusts do not exhaust whole beneficial interest
   2. E.g. if fails on certainty of objects
   3. Vandervell v IRC [1967]
      1. Failed to specify beneficiary for option to buy shares
   4. Money must be contributed on trust initially
      1. Re Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund [1958]
         1. Surplus left for worthy causes
         2. Failed as not charitable
         3. Surplus held on resulting trust for donors
      2. Re West Sussex Constabulary's Benevolent Fund [1970]
         1. Did not follow Gillingham
         2. Unincorporated assoc'n dissolved
         3. Non-charitable purpose
         4. Members subs
            1. Contractual - no resulting trust
         5. Proceeds of entertainment
            1. Contractual - no resulting trust
         6. Anonymous contributions
            1. No resulting trust
         7. Identifiable donations
            1. Held on resulting trust
         8. Surplus funds were bona vacantia
         9. Should surplus funds have gone to members?
      3. Re Bucks Constabulary Fund Friendly Society No 2 [1979]
         1. Surplus funds on dissolution of unincorp assoc
         2. Follow assoc rules if there are any
         3. Or divide between current members
         4. Except in rare cases where donation deemed to be trust
      4. Hanchett-Stamford v AG [2008]
         1. Gifts to non-charitable assocs normally construed as gifts to members
   5. Trust fails to dispose of entire beneficial interest
      1. Re the Trusts of the Abbott Fund [1900]
         1. Fund for maintenance of two old ladies
         2. Surplus held on resulting trust for donors
      2. Re Andrew's Trust [1905]
         1. Fund for education of children
         2. Surplus belonged to children
         3. Intention was to benefit the children
   6. Settlor's intention relevant?
      1. Controversial point
      2. Presumed intention?
      3. Or automatic?
         1. Vandervell
   7. Quistclose?
      1. Money transferred to Rolls Razor to pay dividend
      2. View one:
         1. Express trust to pay dividends failed, leading to resulting trust
      3. View two:
         1. Was a resulting trust all along, with a mandate to pay dividend
2. Voluntary transfer and purchase money cases
   1. Overview
      1. A makes voluntary transfer to B
      2. Or pays for property vested in B's name
      3. Presumption of resulting trust
         1. Can be rebutted
      4. Presumption of advancement in certain family relations
         1. Not since Equality Act 2010
         2. Can be rebutted
   2. Presumption of resulting trust
      1. Voluntary transfer
         1. Rebuttable by evidence of intention
         2. Does not apply to transfer of land
            1. s60c LPA 1925
      2. Purchase money
         1. Abrahams v Trustee in Bankruptcy of Abrahams (1999)
            1. Wife paid for lottery ticket
            2. Husband's share held on trust for wife
         2. Parrott v Parkin [2007]
            1. X contributed 55% of price of yacht
            2. Y held share on trust for X
         3. Family home
            1. Resulting trust in proportion to payments
            2. Must be made at time of acquisition
            3. Curley v Parkes [2004]
            4. Constructive trusts could be alternative
            5. Transfer deed will be conclusive if specifies shares
            6. If not, presumption of equal shares
            7. Stack v Dowden [2007]
            8. Unless bought as investment
            9. Laskar v Laskar [2008]
   3. Presumption of advancement
      1. Father to child
         1. unless over 18
            1. Laskar v Laskar
         2. including in loco parentis
         3. Weak and easily rebutted
            1. McGrath v Wallis
      2. Husband to wife
         1. NOT wife to husband
         2. Weak and easily rebutted
            1. Pettit v Pettit
      3. Fiance to fiancee
         1. NOT unmarried partners
      4. Possibly mother to child
      5. Abolished by s199 Equality Act 2010
   4. Rebuttal
      1. Evidence of contrary intention will rebut
      2. Only acts done and statements made at the time of the transaction
      3. Subsequent declarations only admissable against the person who made them
      4. Shephard v Cartright [1955]
   5. Illegality
      1. Eg to evade tax or creditors
      2. Tinsley v Milligan [1994]
         1. House in T's name as M claiming benefits
         2. Resulting trust in M's favour
         3. M did not need to refer to illegality to make her case
      3. Tribe v Tribe [1996]
         1. Father transferred shares to son to deceive creditors
         2. Illegal purpose never carried into effect
         3. Resulting trust in favour of father
         4. If third party deceived, would not apply
      4. Law Commission draft bill
         1. Court would have discretion to refuse trust