FLK2 · Trusts

Resulting trusts

SQE1 revision notes — the key rules, leading cases and common traps for this topic, in plain English and current to 2026.

TR.05 — Resulting Trusts

A resulting trust arises by operation of law: the beneficial interest "results" (jumps back) to the person who provided it. No writing is needed — s.53(2) LPA 1925 exempts resulting, implied and constructive trusts from the s.53(1)(b) signed-writing requirement.

The two categories (Megarry J, Re Vandervell's Trusts (No 2) [1974]):

Automatic resulting trust — an express trust fails or doesn't exhaust the beneficial interest, so the surplus results to the settlor. Triggers: failed trust (uncertainty, no valid object), failure of a condition, surplus after the purpose is met. Vandervell v IRC [1967]: an undisposed-of option resulted to Vandervell, defeating his tax planning.
Presumed resulting trust — equity presumes the provider did not intend a gift. Two situations:
1. Voluntary transfer of property into another's name (real or personal property). For personalty the presumption applies. For land, s.60(3) LPA 1925 may rebut it (debated — arguably no resulting trust presumed on a voluntary conveyance of land).
2. Purchase money contribution — A pays (wholly/partly) for property vested in B's name; B holds for A in proportion to the contribution (Dyer v Dyer (1788)).

Rebutting the presumption — evidence of intention: the resulting-trust presumption is weak and easily displaced by evidence of a gift or loan.

Presumption of advancement (counter-presumption): where the relationship implies a gift — father→child, husband→wife (and persons in loco parentis). It does NOT run wife→husband, mother→child historically, or between cohabitants. Now weak (Pettitt v Pettitt; Stack v Dowden) and due for abolition by s.199 Equality Act 2010 — not yet in force, so still cite it.

Key traps:

Stack v Dowden [2007] / Jones v Kernott [2011]: for the family home in joint names, the common intention constructive trust governs, not the resulting trust. Don't apply purchase-money resulting trusts to domestic joint ownership.
Illegality: post-Patel v Mirza [2016] a claimant can rely on a resulting trust despite an illegal purpose, applying the range-of-factors test (overruling Tinsley v Milligan's reliance principle).
Resulting trusts respond to absence of intention to benefit, not unjust enrichment (Westdeutsche Landesbank [1996]).
A failed charitable gift may pass cy-près instead of resulting if a general charitable intention exists.

Try a real SQE1 question

Straight from the bank. Answer it, then see the worked reasoning and the tutor — no signup to try.

A woman is the treasurer of a small amateur football club. Members pay £20 each month in cash, which the woman is instructed by the club's rules to bank into the club's dedicated account within seven days. One month she receives £200 in subscriptions but, being short of money, uses the cash to pay her own gas bill. She intends to replace the £200 from her wages before anyone notices, and she does in fact pay an equivalent £200 into the club account two weeks later. The woman is charged with theft of the £200. Which of the following is the strongest basis for finding the property belonged to another at the time she used it?

Before you book a £1,934 exam

Strong on this topic? SQE1 tests 137 of them — and 59% failed in July 2025. See where you stand across all of them, free.

✓An AI tutor on every question that already knows the answer — the part nothing else has
✓5 full mock papers at real exam pace, plus unlimited drilling — no daily cap
✓The whole 2,000+ bank, verified and source-cited to the law, all 137 areas
✓Your weak-spot map: exactly where you’re losing marks

Start my free diagnostic — one tap →

Free. No card. 25 questions, about 15 minutes. Full SQE1 courses run £1,500–£4,000 — this starts at £0.

Resulting trusts

TR.05 — Resulting Trusts

Try a real SQE1 question

More Trusts topics