The Supreme Court held that the company held the houses on resulting trust for the transferor: "The only question is who did hold the beneficial interest. ⇒ In Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd houses had been conveyed to a company for a nominal sum. Court can hear evidence from both parties, but no presumption when there is voluntary transfers of land.It was not suggested that this proposition precludes a party to the conveyance from relying on evidence from which a resulting trust may be inferred." This case establishes that the presumption of a resulting trust on a voluntary conveyance of land has been abolished by s 60(3) Law of Property Act 1925. ⇒ In Ali v Khan, Sir Andrew Morritt VC said the following: "I should also refer to Lohia v Lohia. So, if you transfer land without value there is no presumption of a resuling trust → the court will look at evidence to decide if gift is intended or not.⇒ Law of Property Act 1925 s.60(3): "In a voluntary conveyance a resulting trust for the grantor shall not be implied merely by reason that the property is not expressed to be conveyed for the use or benefit of the grantee." ⇒ See the cases of Fowkes v Pascoe (1875) and Re Vinogradoff However, equity presumes that there is no gift unless there is evidence. ![]() In general, where a person transfers money, land or other property to another person without payment, one might think that, without any evidence otherwise, it would be reasonable to presume that the transfer was a gift. ⇒ Where a person transfers property to a third party, without value, the transferee may hold the property on resulting trust for the transferor.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |