Mutual intention and Quistclose trusts
Access status:
Open Access
Type
ArticleAuthor/s
Glister, JamieAbstract
It is said that Quistclose-type trusts depend on the mutual intention of the parties. This article argues that no such requirement exists and that there are good reasons for treating the intentions of the transferor and recipient individually. By separating the first question of whether a trust was created (or would have been created) from the second question of whether the recipient took subject to a trust, we can also explain why and when Barnes v Addy personal liability will be available after breach of a Quistclose trust.It is said that Quistclose-type trusts depend on the mutual intention of the parties. This article argues that no such requirement exists and that there are good reasons for treating the intentions of the transferor and recipient individually. By separating the first question of whether a trust was created (or would have been created) from the second question of whether the recipient took subject to a trust, we can also explain why and when Barnes v Addy personal liability will be available after breach of a Quistclose trust.
See less
See less
Date
2012Source title
Journal of EquityVolume
6Issue
3Publisher
LexisNexisLicence
Copyright All Rights ReservedRights statement
This article was published by LexisNexis and should be cited as: Glister, J. (2012). Mutual intention and Quistclose trusts. Journal of Equity, 6(3), 221–237.Faculty/School
The University of Sydney Law SchoolShare