Fowkes v Pascoe
The presumption of resulting trust can be rebutted by evidence that the person who paid intended to make a gift.
Facts
Mrs Baker, a wealthy widow, bought stock in the joint names of herself and Mr Pascoe, the son of her daughter in law, with whom she had a close relationship. She also held stock in her own name. After her death, her executors claimed that Mr Pascoe held the stock on resulting trust for her estate, because she had paid for it.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Pascoe was entitled to the stock. Mellish LJ said that the presumption of resulting trust is a presumption of fact, which can be rebutted by evidence of the purchaser's intention. Mrs Baker could have had no reason for buying stock in joint names other than to make a gift to Mr Pascoe, since she already had stock in her own name, and the circumstances showed that she intended him to have the stock on her death.
Related cases on resulting trusts
- Re Abbott Fund Trusts [1900] 2 Ch 326
- Air Jamaica Ltd v Charlton [1999] 1 WLR 1399
- Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1970] AC 567
- Bennet v Bennet (1879) 10 Ch D 474
- Dyer v Dyer (1788) 2 Cox Eq 92
- Re Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund [1958] Ch 300
- Hussey v Palmer [1972] 1 WLR 1286
- Laskar v Laskar [2008] EWCA Civ 347, [2008] 1 WLR 2695
Studying equity and trusts? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
