See Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC (1996) AC 669,708. See Swadling, “A Hard Look at Hodgson v Marks”, Rickett and Grantham, “Resulting Trusts—A Rather Limited Doctrine”, Payne, “Quistclose and Resulting Trusts”. Peter Birks and Francis Rose, Restitution and Equity, Vol. I, Mansfield Press, 4.

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Understanding the Nature of the Presumption of Resulting Trusts

  AUTHORS: Xueping Chen

  KEYWORDS: Presumption, Resulting Trusts, Intention, Evidential Circumstances

  JOURNAL NAME: Open Access Library Journal, Vol.1 No.5, August 21, 2014

  ABSTRACT: The nature of the presumption of a resulting trust has generated a controversy, which has created two schools of thoughts. Both schools of thoughts claim that resulting trusts give effect to the presumed intention, positive or negative. But in this paper, I take on a quite different view of point that whether a lack of intent to benefit or a positive intent to create a trust is not related with the presumption of the resulting trusts, which, I believe, will make it interesting to general readers. Further, this paper thinks the presumption of a resulting trust as circumstances or facts based on presumption, legal presumption and thinks that it can be rebutted by evidential circumstances, which are helpful to ascertain the grounds for imposing a resulting trust. In a word, exploring the nature of the presumption of resulting trusts will aid in the understanding the grounds upon which a resulting trust is imposed. This article proceeds under four parts: the role of intention in the presumption of the resulting trusts; the circumstances or facts based on presumption; a legal presumption; rebutting by evidential circumstances.