1
UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES
FACULTY OF LAW
RESULTING TRUST
The word ‘resulting’ is derived from the Latin very resultare, meaning ‘to spring back’. A
resulting trust will therefore arise where the beneficial interest in realty or a personalty
springs back to the donor or the settlor. Thus the legal title might be found vested in the
other party, who would be required to hold the property for the benefit of the settlor or the
donor.
Generally, a resulting trust will arise where it can be inferred that it was the intention of the
settlor that the beneficial interest should enure to him. The doctrine is founded on the
implied or presumed intention of the settlor. It is not based on express intention. The facts
and the decisions of Smith v. Cooke (1891) A.C. 297 and re Vandervell’s Trusts (No. 2)
[1974] Ch. 269 stretched the doctrinal basis of the concept of resulting trust to its limits,
rendering it the character of an institution imposed by equity. There is therefore no
doctrinal unity in the cases. However, they are not subject to the rules of express trust,
which depends on express and not implied or inferred intention.
The cases warrant the following three classifications:-
1.
Where an express trust fails:
Where a trust fails, for example, on grounds of uncertainty of objects or beneficial
interest (not subject matter) there will be a resulting trust to the settlor, see re Ames’
Settlement (1946) Ch. 217. The beneficial interest will equally revert to the donor
or settlor where the gift violates the rule against perpetuity, fails to comply with the
statutory requirements for the transfer of interest in land, or where in creating a half
secret trust, the settlor fails to communicate the objects of the trust to the donee or
trustee by the time of the making of the will.
2
2.
Where the beneficial interest is not fully disposed of:
Where the objects of the trust do not exhaust all the trust fund or property, the
remainder will return to the settlor on a resulting, i.e., the trustee will hold the
remaind