The money given to pay dividends was held on a primary trust to pay dividends and when that failed the secondary trust (resulting) was to repay the lender.

Property was bought in joint names and the parties later separated. On the allocation of property rights, the courts had to determine how the share could be determined.

As the parties already had a beneficial interest as legal joint tenants the only issue was to consider the size of the beneficial interest. The courts considered that resulting trusts were not the suitable approach to take in family situations such as this, and approved the approach taken in Oxley v Hiscock [2004].

Property was purchased with a mortgage in the name of Mr Rosset only. Extensive renovation work was supervised by Mrs Rosset. The bank claimed possession of the home when the mortgage was defaulted. Mrs Rosset tried to establish an equitable interest in the home by way of constructive trust.

To establish an interest under a constructive trust it must be proved that there was:

• an express declaration that the beneficial interest would arise, followed by detrimental reliance; or
• financial contributions to the purchase of the home, which could be post-acquisition, from which the courts could infer a common intention as to beneficial ownership.

Property was purchased by a father for his legitimate child.

The court presumes that this is a gift and no equitable interest arises for the father unless he can prove a contrary intention.

The case involved insider dealing, so was based outside the issues of equity. Why it is important is in discussing the use of illegality as evidence.

The reliance model of illegality in Tinsley v Milligan was no longer the correct test but should be one based on the broader issues of policy, proportionality, and public interest.