The Law of Trusts and Equitable Obligations Case Study

The Law of Trusts and Equit satisfactory Obligations - slip of paper Study ExampleWhether or not the courts will find so in this instance is indeterminate to debate. As it is a arrogance it is rebuttable by the donees devoteing that it was a invest, but the onus is on Wendy and Karen to disposition that it is a gift.(i)(a). Wendy will have to establish either that Martin intended to make a gift or that the presumption of progression takes precedence over the presumption of a resulting trust. In ensnare to establish that a gift was made the onus of proof is on Wendy. The court must go into the facts in order to determine whether there is equal evidence to rebut the presumption.Whilst Wendy is not married to Martin they do have a relationship which might indicate a object lesson obligation on Martins part to offer for Wendy. This could give rise to the presumption of advancement, in which the assumption is that Martin intended Wendy to take twain the legal and the benefici al pastime of the shares. However in a series of cases quoted in Pearce and Stevens1 it is clear that there is no presumption of advancement between cohabiting couples. However in Pettitt v Pettitt 1970 AC 777 at paragraph 823 Lord Diplock reminds us that the presumption of resulting trust and advancement areOn the facts before us there is no reason to confide that Martin did not intend Wendy to own the shares outright. We are reminded that they shared a full life together and that Martin purchased shares for both Wendy and Karen at the same time. there is no indication that he did this for any other reason than for them to hang benefits from the company - in the form of dividends - as the shares increased in value. It could be argued that based on behave and the circumstances that Martin intended the shares as a gift. For example, Wendy may be able to show that Martin gave her the share certificates and that she was able to keep the dividends. However, based on the evidence be fore us the point is moot, and could go either way.(i)(b) There is a presumption of advancement between a father and his electric razor, that is that a father would wish to provide financially for his child Murless v Franklin 1818 1 Swans 13. In such a case the child takes the blank space beneficially.Whilst Karen is not Martins child they do have a relationship which might indicate a moral obligation on Martins part to provide for Karen. In Bennet v Bennet 1879 10 Ch D 474 Jessel MR saidas regards a child, a person not the father of the child may say himself in the position of an in loco parentis to the child, and so incur the obligation to make provision for the childThe burden of proof will be on Martin to show that no gift was intended. For example if Martin could show that he retained the share certificates and/or that Karen paid the dividends to him (see Re Gooch 1890 62 LT 384) this might be sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption, particularly if at the same time Mar tin had clearly stated that a gift was not intended.(ii) Martins rights - if any - will be determined under a resulting or common endeavor constructive trust, or else proprietary estoppel - which does not require proof of common intention.Since Martin has made a hold contribution to the purchase price out of the profits of the business and by paying the mortgage this raises a