Chapter 16 Multiple choice questions

* not completed

. In Abrahams v Trustee in Bankruptcy of Abrahams [1999] BPIR 637. A wife paid £1.00 each week into a National Lottery syndicate under the name of the husband, from whom she had separated. The syndicate won. The court held that the right to winnings had the character of a property right, and that this right, though in the husband's name, was presumed to be the wife's. Why?

Because of a constructive trust arising to prevent her husband's unjust enrichment correct incorrect

Because of a constructive trust arising to prevent her husband's unconscionability correct incorrect

Because of a resulting trust arising from her financial contribution correct incorrect

Because of a personal right to restitution arising to prevent her husband's unjust enrichment correct incorrect

* not completed

. The presumption of a resulting trust is rebutted by:

Evidence of a positive intention to loan, only correct incorrect

Evidence of a positive intention to give, only correct incorrect

Evidence of any intention inconsistent with such a trust correct incorrect

Evidence giving rise to a presumption of advancement only correct incorrect

* not completed

. Where a claim to an interest under a resulting trust is based on an illegal transaction the resulting trust will not be allowed. Why?

Public policy prevents the reliance on illegality to assert a right correct incorrect

Illegality rebuts the presumption of a resulting trust correct incorrect

Public policy prevents the assertion of a right which would offend the public conscience correct incorrect

Public policy prevents the assertion of a right which would offend the public conscience correct incorrect

* not completed

. Which of the following was not a fact in the saga leading to Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1967] 2 AC 291?

A controlling director and shareholder of a company transferred to the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) certain shares held in his name correct incorrect

The Royal College of Surgeons, upon receipt of the shares, executed an option in favour of a trustee company correct incorrect

The trustee company exercised the option to repurchase the shares from The Royal College of Surgeons for £5,000 correct incorrect

The Inland Revenue Commissioners sought to recover tax for the period between 1958 and 1961 correct incorrect

* not completed

. In Re Vandervell's Trusts (No. 2) [1974] 1 All ER 47, Megarry J asked: 'was the option held on a resulting trust or other trust for Mr Vandervell, or was it held on the trusts of the children's settlement?' What did he hold?

It was held on a presumed resulting trust for the children's settlement correct incorrect

It was held on a presumed resulting trust for Mr Vandervell correct incorrect

It was held on an automatic resulting trust for the children's settlement correct incorrect

It was held on an automatic resulting trust for Mr Vandervell correct incorrect

* not completed

. In Re Vandervell's Trusts (No. 2) [1974] 3 All ER 205, Court of Appeal (on appeal from Megarry J) it was held:

As a result of the exercise of the option by the trustee company in 1961, the trustee company thereafter held the shares on the trusts of the children's settlement correct incorrect

As a result of the exercise of the option by the trustee company in 1961, the trustee company thereafter held the shares on automatic resulting trust for Mr Vandervell correct incorrect

As a result of the exercise of the option by the trustee company in 1961, the trustee company thereafter held the shares as Bona Vacantia for the Crown correct incorrect

As a result of the exercise of the option by the trustee company in 1961, the trustee company thereafter held the shares on presumed resulting trust for Mr Vandervell correct incorrect

* not completed

. In Banner Homes Group plc v Luff Developments Ltd (No.1) [2000] Ch 372, Luff agreed in principle with Banner that they would create a new joint venture company to purchase a commercial site. They agreed to take equal shares in the new company. On that understanding, Luff purchased S Ltd (a new company) for use in the joint venture. Later, Luff began to have doubts about the proposed joint venture and started looking for a new partner. It did not tell Banner, fearing that Banner might put in an independent bid for the commercial site. Banner continued to act on the footing that the joint venture would proceed, always anticipating that Banner and Luff would enter into a formal agreement setting out the terms of the joint venture. S Ltd eventually acquired the site with funds provided by Luff, and only then did Luff inform Banner that the proposed joint venture would not be going ahead. What was the outcome in the Court of Appeal?

Banner was entitled to half the shares in S Ltd under a constructive trust correct incorrect

Banner was entitled to half the shares in S Ltd under a resulting trust correct incorrect

Banner was entitled to nothing correct incorrect

Banner was awarded an interest under an express trust of the shares in S Ltd to be drawn up at the court's order, with Banner being expressly granted a beneficial interest in the shares in proportion to the sum contributed as a proportion of the current value of the shares correct incorrect

* not completed

. In FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [[2014] UKSC 45, Supreme Court, FHR purchased a Monte Carlo hotel company for €211.5 million. Cedar was FHR's agent in the negotiation, but Cedar had secretly entered into a brokerage agreement with the vendor under which it received €10m. FHR argued that any unauthorized benefit (such as a bribe or secret commission) that is received by an agent by reason of his agency and in breach of fiduciary duty should be held on constructive trust for the principal. Lord Neuberger approved FHR's argument as having 'the merit of simplicity' (para. [35]) and the Supreme Court confirmed the High Court's decision that Cedar held the €10m subject to a constructive trust in favour of FHR. Which Privy Council decision was thereby approved?

A-G for Hong Kong v Reid [1994] 1 All ER 1. correct incorrect

Reading v AG [1951] AC 507 correct incorrect

Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan correct incorrect

Cook v Deeks [1916] 1 AC 554 correct incorrect

* not completed

. Which of the following summarises a key outcome of the decision in FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [[2014] UKSC 45, Supreme Court?

owners are able to recover their misapplied property under a constructive trust correct incorrect

The victim of a bribe is not entitled to the bribe, but can claim any profit made from the bribe correct incorrect

A bribed fiduciary is not permitted to retain the bribe or any profit made from the bribe correct incorrect

A bribed fiduciary takes the bribe on trust for their principle correct incorrect

* not completed

. An equity arising because it would be inequitable to allow party A to claim outright a site which it had acquired in furtherance of a non-contractual, pre-acquisition understanding that it would be acquired for the joint benefit of party A and party B. What equity is described here?

Equity of redemption correct incorrect

Equity of redemption correct incorrect

Equity of the statute correct incorrect

Pallant v Morgan equity correct incorrect