Shephard v Cartwright
The presumption of advancement can be rebutted only by evidence of the transferor's intention at the time of the transfer, and later acts or statements are admissible only against the person who makes them.
Facts
A father had shares in family companies allotted in the names of his three children. Years later, the shares were sold, and the father obtained the children's signatures to documents allowing him to use the proceeds, which he then spent. After his death, the children claimed the money from his estate, which argued that the father had never intended the shares to be a gift.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the presumption of advancement applied, so the children were entitled to the shares. Viscount Simonds said that the presumption can be rebutted only by acts and declarations of the parties before or at the time of the purchase, or so immediately after it as to constitute part of the transaction. Later acts and declarations are admissible only as evidence against the party who made them, not in his favour. The father's later conduct could not be used to rebut the presumption in his favour.
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.
