Constructive trust meaning

Existence and validity of trusts Provincial Equity Finance Ltd v Dines (née Breda) [2023] EWHC 103 (Ch) News Analysis: A literary epigraph—‘By prosperous voyages I often made… and the great care of goods at random left’—introduces a consideration of resulting trusts and the scope of express trusts. The decision underscores the practical obstacles in proving a resulting trust where a disorganised deceased ran bank accounts for mixed ends, and confirms that an express trust can override the presumption of a resulting trust even if the contributor of funds is not a party to the express trust. Author: Nicholas Holland, McDermott Will & Emery UK LLP Jurisdiction: England & Wales Attorney General v Zedra Fiduciary Services (UK) Ltd and others [2022] EWHC 102 (Ch) News Analysis: The court sanctioned a cy près scheme for a £600m charitable trust to be used towards reducing the National Debt, addressing the suitable application of the National Fund. The judgment considers...

DDR v BDR [2024] EWFC 278 What are the practical implications of this case? As well as offering a highly accessible distillation and application of the principles governing disputes over property between a sole legal proprietor and a non-legal claimant asserting a beneficial interest, this judgment underlines the truly basic distinction between the court’s declaratory function in property matters and its redistributive powers under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973). It also offers a template for the clear, targeted presentation of financial remedy applications. Where questions arise about the scope of a party’s bankruptcy estate, the approach must be equally disciplined. Its structured reasoning demonstrates how to keep such issues sharply defined and tightly analysed throughout the conduct of the application, from start to finish. The judge’s careful, methodical analysis should not mask the 'somewhat unfocused and unproductive' progression of the litigation for a substantial period, a consequence in large measure of both parties acting in person for most of the case. Happily, at a comparatively late juncture,...

In this issue: Disputes and remedies Enfranchisement and right to manage Repairing obligations and dilapidations LexTalk®Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Additional Property disputes updates Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&A Disputes and remedies Application for an injunction to restrain the sale of properties failed (Matthews v Matthews (a protected party, by his deputy Anne Minihane)) In Matthews v Matthews (a protected party, by his deputy Anne Minihane) [2024] EWHC 2182 (Ch), the Chancery Division refused the claimant’s (R’s) bid for an injunction preventing the disposal of the defendant’s (F’s) properties. F, an elderly individual lacking capacity to manage his property and financial affairs, was represented by an interim deputy (M). R and F were second cousins with a long-standing connection through their farming interests. R had also previously served as F’s health and welfare attorney. To discharge F’s liabilities, M was instructed to sell three plots of agricultural...

O’Neil v Holland [2020] EWCA Civ 1583 What are the practical implications of this case? Lord Justice Henderson confirmed that proof of detrimental reliance is a core precondition for a common intention constructive trust. That requirement had earlier been articulated in Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638 and was treated as assumed on appeal in Curran v Collins [2015] EWCA Civ 404, [2016] 1 FLR 505. O’Neill v Holland provides the most explicit recent statement that a party must establish detrimental reliance to demonstrate the existence of such a trust. It also stands as authority that appealing to unconscionability alone will not suffice, and that the question of detrimental reliance is judged objectively. Advisers considering whether a common intention constructive trust arises must therefore pinpoint the exact basis on which the claimant acted, to their disadvantage, in reliance on the shared intention (cf Grant v Edwards at 651G; 654D–E). When formulating pleadings asserting that a common intention constructive trust has arisen, it is prudent to set out detrimental reliance...

Under the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), the expiry of a limitation period does not extinguish the underlying right; it simply blocks the claimant’s remedy. Limitation must be raised by the defendant, and when properly pleaded it operates as a complete defence. Once pleaded, the initial burden lies with the claimant to demonstrate they fall within time; if they do, the burden then shifts to the defendant to show otherwise. Sections 21, 22 and 23 of LA 1980 reaffirm the earlier position set out in sections 19 and 20 of the Limitation Act 1939, and they extend to executors and trustees, including trustees of express, resulting and constructive trusts of property. LA 1980 also preserves the distinction between: trustees who have acted fraudulently or retained trust assets or converted them to their own use, and trustees responsible for an innocent or negligent breach of trust The purpose of limitation Limitation prescribes the timeframe in which a claimant may pursue a remedy. Its...

The section 2 requirements in the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (LP(MP)A 1989) are disapplied for certain contracts and trusts. This Practice Note identifies those categories and outlines how the exceptions take effect. Excepted contracts The contractual formalities set out in LP(MP)A 1989, s 2 do not apply to contracts: for leases not exceeding three years (ie short leases under Law of Property Act 1925, s 54) made in the course of a public auction regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (other than a regulated mortgage contract, regulated home reversion plan, regulated purchase plan or a regulated sale and rent back agreement) Constructive trusts The statutory formalities in LP(MP)A 1989, s 2 do not affect the creation or operation of resulting, implied or constructive trusts. No written evidence is required. A constructive trust arises in relation to legal title where a party’s conduct makes it unconscionable to allow them to deny the other party...

Court of Appeal—professional negligence ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. The Court of Appeal upheld an appeal in a claim against solicitors, holding that the loss of a chance head of damage was too remote. At first instance, the judge concluded that Lewis Silkin LLP had fallen below the required standard by not advising their client to include a jurisdiction provision in his employment agreement with a franchisee involved in the Indian Premier League’s Twenty20 competition. Because no jurisdiction clause appeared in the contract, when the client later issued proceedings against the franchisee over a severance entitlement, he faced jurisdictional challenges (ultimately dismissed) brought by the franchisee, which postponed his obtaining judgment for £10 million in severance. The client’s case was that, with proper advice on jurisdiction, the contract would have contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause. On that footing, he said, he would have secured judgment for the severance sum sooner (as there would have been no hold‑ups arising from jurisdiction objections) and...

[ Insert in para 8.2 of claim form ET1: ] The Respondent engaged the Claimant as a [ job title ]. She was based at the Respondent’s premises at [ insert address ], where she was one of only three women employed. [ It was an implied term of the Claimant’s employment contract that the Respondent would not behave in a way calculated or likely to erode the mutual trust and confidence between employer and employee. ] The Claimant contends that the Respondent subjected her to [ a course of ] discrimination, sex-related harassment, harassment of a sexual nature, and victimisation, which encompassed discriminatory and constructive unfair dismissal. On or around [ insert date ], her colleague, [ insert name ], asked her to send him certain sales reports. She informed [ insert name ] that she was in the process of compiling the figures and would supply the full report after lunch. He replied, ‘No need to bite my head off. Is it that...

Dear [ insert firm name ] Our Client: [ ]Your Client: [ ]Re: [ insert property address ] We represent [ ]. This correspondence constitutes a formal claim concerning our client’s asserted beneficial interest in the property located at [ insert property address ] (‘the Property’), arising from a common intention constructive trust. As explained below, our client seeks an order for sale of the Property to facilitate the realisation of their interest. Background [ Provide a concise, neutral outline of the relevant and material factual background. ]...

[ Insert in para 6.1 of response form ET3: ] It is [ accepted OR not accepted OR denied ] that the Claimant worked for the Respondent as [ insert job title, eg ‘a financial analyst’ or ‘an insurance sales manager’ ] from [ insert start date of employment ] until [ end date of employment ] [ at its [ insert details of particular office or location, eg ‘London Headquarters in Canary Wharf’ ] ]. It is [ accepted ] that the Respondent is [ insert brief description of the nature of the Respondent, eg a global investment bank ]. The Respondent disputes that the Claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed [ and/or wrongfully dismissed ], as alleged or at all. [ [ EXAMPLE A (Response to alleged breach of term of trust and confidence): ] It is acknowledged that the Claimant’s contract of employment, dated [ insert date ], contained an implied term that the Respondent would not, without reasonable and proper cause, act...