Why no constructive trust?
Mrs Carrick argued that apart from the unregistered estate contract, she had an interest by way of trust or estoppel, which did not need to be registered under the Land Charges Act, and therefore bound the bank with notice. Morritt LJ rejected an argument that a bare trust could (apart from the contract) be inferred from the payment of the 19,000 alone, and it is difficult to argue with this conclusion. Payment of money, or at any rate direct contributions to the purchase price of a property, can lead to the inference that the provider of the money is to enjoy an interest in the property under Lord Bridge’s second category in Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107, at pp 132E-133A. The juristic basis can, since Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] 2 All ER 961, be described as a type (A) resulting trust. As Lord Browne-Wilkinson observed (at p 990g), “…where A makes a voluntary payment to B or pays (wholly or in part) for the purchase of pr
