Constructive trusts Circumstantial

Constructive trusts are created through the application of law, which is the
answer to one of the most important concern that has been raised regarding
them. Constructive trusts are not currently categorized in an organized way.
The reason constructive trusts are not adequately defined and classed in
English law, according to Edmund Davies J in Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Herbert
Smith is to provide them flexibility and free the courts from strict formalities.
Yet, some of the circumstances when a constructive trust can exist were
outlined in the case of FHR European Investments v. Cedar [2014]. It is crucial
to realize right away that although constructive trusts are created by law, they
are enforced by the courts, not always at their discretion. In most common law
contexts, constructive trusts are typically seen as either institutional or
remedial. Nonetheless, institutional constructive trusts are enforced under
English law when someone acted in a certain way while knowing it was wrong
to do so.
Although the definition of constructive trusts is ambiguous, there are a few
situations where they do exist, and we shall address those here. They may
appear in cases of wrongdoing, potential for unjust gain, and a variety of other
circumstances. Our discussion will conclude by addressing whether or not they
develop as constructive trusts for remedial purposes.
When a fiduciary obligation is broken, a constructive trust may develop as a
result of the misconduct. When a fiduciary gets a bribe Dale v. IRS [1954] or
makes illicit profits using secret knowledge, it is considered a breach of
fiduciary responsibility. Boardman v. Phibbs, A.G. v. Guardian Newspaper.
According to the doctrine of unauthorized profits, a trustee may also violate his
fiduciary obligation by renewing a lease for his own gain and this can be seen
in the case of Keech v. Sanford or by purchasing the freehold for his own
benefit Potheroe v. Protheroe. In Regal v. Gulliver, it was determined that
corporate directors are the fiduciaries and that a constructive trust will form if
they make an unauthorized profit as a result of their position. A breach also
occurs when someone takes advantage of an opportunity or piece of
information while acting in a fiduciary capacity, as in IDC v. Cooley.
A highly contentious ruling in Lister v. Stubbs about bribes was followed for a
very long time before it was recently overturned by the UK Supreme Court in
FHR European Ventures v. Cedar LLC (2014). Prior to this landmark ruling,
courts would typically dismiss a proprietary claim when a fiduciary had
accepted a bribe or commission.
Nonetheless, there has been significant debate regarding the legality of a
constructive trust because it has been questioned as to why it doesn't apply to
other types of crime, such as the tort of trespass Re Poly Peck or the tort of
fraud Halifax v Thomas. Why not follow the strategy used in the Canadian case
Lac Minerals? It seems extremely illogical to permit constructive trusts in the
context of fiduciary duty violations alone and not the other wrongdoings.
When there is unfair enrichment, which might happen when there is an
erroneous payment, a constructive trust can emerge in the second group. In
the 1981 case of Chase Manhattan v. Israel British Bank, it took place. In the
case of Chase Manhattan Bank N.A. v. Israel British Bank, Giudliong J.
ruled that a person who sends money to another by accident retains an
equitable interest in it and that the recipient owes him a fiduciary duty to
respect his proprietary right. In Angrove's Pty Ltd v. Bailey, the UKSC upheld
this point of view. Chambers, however, is of the opinion that resulting trusts
ought to be in charge of mistake payments. Some question why in the cases of
Air Jamaica and Vandervell v. IRC, constructive trusts did not materialize.
We will quickly explore these scenarios where a constructive trust develops
because there are some complex situations that cannot be adequately
described.
If there was an unauthorized substitution, as in the case of Foskett v.
McKeown, where the funds for the purchase of property were used for
insurance, the trustee will maintain a constructive trust in the beneficiary's
favor. According to Lord Millet, tracing causes a right to exist in this situation.
According to Lord Hoffman, the property's mingling gave rise to the right. These
methods seem illogical considering that tracing only grants the right to identify
the property. According to Professor Chambers, the right developed to prevent
unfair enrichment.
Common wisdom holds that a flawed gift cannot be made perfect by equity.
Nonetheless, there have been situations in which the courts have made a
flawed gift excellent; the cases of Re Rose and Pennington v. Waine are the
perfect examples. It is said that equity interferes needlessly and tries to grant
equitable title prior to establishing legal title.
Another situation where a constructive trust develops is in the family home
cases, which are Stack v. Dowden and Oxley v. Hiscock. However, the court
in Williams v. Central Bank of Nigeria confirmed that such trusts don't arise
where there is dishonest assistance, contrary to what many people believed
after Stack v. Dowden that the UKSC would further expand the area giving
birth to constructive trusts. The trust in this case is derived from a common
intention, according to Lady Hale's views.
In the case of Australia Evans v. European Bank Ltd, it was determined that
obtaining property by theft or deception constitutes a constructive trust. In
cases when a contract is particularly enforceable, a constructive trust can also
develop. This was affirmed in Jerome v. Kelly and established in Lysaught v.
Edwards, Oughtred v. IRC, Neville v. Wilson, and Lysaught v. Edwards.
Equity views this strategy as having a serious interest in matters involving
private interests.
There has been a claim made that the constructive trusts are governed by
multiple principles. There is no agreement on why they arise, even though it is
known that they do. It is clear that a trust is being built, but it is uncertain
why. Up until this point, all attempts to bring them together under one flag
have failed.

“IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT QUESTIONS COULD COME FROM A

VARIETY OF ANGLES IN THE EXAM SO THESE ESSAYS DO NOT
GURRANTEE YOUR MARKS. IN ORDER TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN
THE PAPER AND RESPOND TO NEW ANGLES, PLEASE STUDY THE
ENTIRE CHAPTER AND UNDERTAKE PREPARATORY RESEARCH.”