Lavelle v Lavelle
The presumption of advancement is now weak and can be rebutted by comparatively slight evidence.
Facts
Mr Lavelle bought a flat and had it transferred into the name of his daughter, to avoid inheritance tax, while continuing to live in it and to treat it as his own. He later fell out with his daughter, and claimed that she held the flat on resulting trust for him. The daughter relied on the presumption of advancement.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the presumption of advancement had been rebutted, so the daughter held the flat on resulting trust for her father. Lord Phillips MR said that, in modern conditions, the presumption of advancement is weak, and it can be rebutted by comparatively slight evidence. The evidence showed that Mr Lavelle had not intended to give up his beneficial interest in the flat, and the plan to avoid inheritance tax had been for the future rather than an immediate gift.
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
- Fowkes v Pascoe (1875) LR 10 Ch App 343
- Re Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund [1958] Ch 300
- Hussey v Palmer [1972] 1 WLR 1286
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.
