Classification of Quistclose trust
- Created by: Emilio Graham
- Created on: 11-05-13 10:49
View mindmap
- How can a Quistclose Trust be classified?
- Resulting trust
- Two stage trust from Lord Wilberforce in Quistclose
- L Millet in Twinsectra v Yardley [2002]
- BI intended from start. Does not part with entire BI in loan money
- Q trusts arises from operation of law. "being an entirely orthodox example of the default trust known as an RT"
- Problems: (1)Lateness, (2)Complete transfer of money ends equitable interest (3) Millett dissenting
- Not based on recovery of interest but creation
- Chambers 1997, equitable right, then if fails RT
- Definition
- from BB v QI Ltd 1968
- A loans money to B for purpose, purpose fails, money back to B
- Express Trust
- Millet Theory 1985 LQR
- No RT at all, which was radical! BI intended from start, based on actual intention of parties. Bare trust with mandate.
- Problem: It is still a purposive trust. Can't escape that!
- Millet Theory 1985 LQR
- Constructive Trust
- Gibson J's reference to 'conscience' in Carreras Rothmans v Freeman Matthews Treasure Ltd (1985)
- "Equity fastens to the conscience" of people to use money as directed, could make Q trusts constructive in nature.
- Still the same problem with lateness
- Gibson J's reference to 'conscience' in Carreras Rothmans v Freeman Matthews Treasure Ltd (1985)
- Conclusion
- Identifying relationships key
- Who are the beneficiaries?
- Remainder? Re EVTR (1987)
- The agreeing problem
- Future is uncertain. No clamour for legislation. Ignored in Bankruptcy Act 2002
- L Millett suggesting expansion of Q trust applying it to other commercial arrangements
- Resulting trust
Comments
No comments have yet been made