This three-hour course will consider the law regarding disputes that arise over whether the transfer of property has constituted a trust or is for some other purpose - a gift, a loan, or to hide some other transaction.
In recent years the appellate courts in England and Hong Kong have reasserted the basic principles involved in deciding who is the owner of property - this has been part of a concerted effort by the courts to clarify these principles and minimise recourse to litigation. The cases in which these principles have been considered include disputes over whether there is an express and/or an implied trust, whether there is a gift or trust of the beneficial interest in a trust of land (and the existence of new presumptions to assist in these cases), whether a trust is in different terms to those expressed in its instrument, and allegations that a trust is not a trust, merely a sham.
In this seminar we will consider the presumptions seemingly identified in Stack v Dowden and Laskar v Laskar; the importance of the intention of the transferor when property is transferred into the name of another (Leung Wing Yi Asther v Kwok Yu Wah) or into the joint names of the donee or settlor and the name of another (Marr v Collie); beneficial ownership of money held in joint bank accounts (Whitlock v Moree); and, the importance of considering more than just the written terms of the trust (Webb v Webb).
The seminar will conclude with a consideration of whether these decisions may have clarified or confused the law and reduced litigation. In effect, has this guidance provided an “equitable toolkit” from “first principles” for a “plain man’s guide” to the law of ownership of personal property, money in bank accounts and real property?
