The imposition of a resulting trust for a settlor may be contrary to their every intention. Discuss the situations when a resulting trust can arise and if they are justified.

Introduction: explain that resulting trusts operate outside the requirements of express trusts and that they may arise contrary to the intention of the settlor. Consider if this is a justifiable basis of the legal rules.

Consider the categorisation of Megarry in Vandervell. Automatically arise when there is uncertainty of objects; failure of a contingency; failure to dispose of beneficial interest or surplus funds, and when a stated purpose fails.

Uncertainty of objects is a failure to specify intentions clearly, see Vandervell and how the intention was defeated. This may also occur in a failed contingency.

Consider the arguments of Prof W Swadling; Prof Chambers and Prof Birks on the relevance of intention, with reference to Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington LBC. The result of this case can illustrate the importance of intention in reaching a judgment, so it is not just an academic debate.

The cases in relation to surplus funds can be discussed in relation to the charity/purpose cases such as Re the Trust of the Abbott Fund. Consider whether those who give to charity really intend to regain their property should the charity not need it.

Consider if there should be different rules for donations for purposes with human beneficiaries and those with no human beneficiary.

The discussion above can lead to a discussion of Quistclose trusts and how the intention of the settlor is enforced here, so the imposition of a resulting trust in this situation specifically does reflect the intention of the settlor.

Presumed resulting trusts are based on the presumed intention of the parties. Explain their imposition in voluntary transfers or purchase in the name of another.

Explain how the intention of the parties is evidenced, what evidence is admissible.

It may be possible to include an explanation of  the presumption of advancement reversing the presumption of resulting trust. It is still based on the presumed intention of the parties. The intention of the 'settlor' is enforced as far as the courts are able find that intention.

Conclude with your view on the statement. There is no one rule with resulting trusts which deny the settlor's intention, and make a distinction between automatic and presumed.