重新思考Stack v Dowden和Jones v Kernott案中的共同意图推定信托——是否应该优先考虑结果信托?

Yee Ching Leung
{"title":"重新思考Stack v Dowden和Jones v Kernott案中的共同意图推定信托——是否应该优先考虑结果信托?","authors":"Yee Ching Leung","doi":"10.14296/ISLR.V6I1.4962","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Yee Ching Leung takes the two landmark cases, Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, as starting points to consider the new Common Intention Constructive Trust approach in dealing with the issue of how the beneficial interest of a property is to be shared between two separating cohabitants. The article analyses whether this new approach should be preferred over the traditional Resulting Trust approach. The author explains the two approaches and gives three arguments in support of the Resulting Trust approach. First, it provides a greater degree of certainty, which is crucial in property law. Secondly, the traditional approach is more coherent in principle when comparing to the Common Intention Constructive Trust approach. Thirdly, the author argues that the Resulting Trust approach would not leave the discretion of judges unconfined. Toward the end of the article, the author gives two brief replies to the critics of the Resulting Trust approach. However, the Common Intention Constructive Trust approach is now the law of England and whether the Resulting Trust approach will return remains to be seen.","PeriodicalId":122771,"journal":{"name":"IALS Student Law Review","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking the Common Intention Constructive Trusts in Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott – should the Resulting Trusts be preferred?\",\"authors\":\"Yee Ching Leung\",\"doi\":\"10.14296/ISLR.V6I1.4962\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Yee Ching Leung takes the two landmark cases, Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, as starting points to consider the new Common Intention Constructive Trust approach in dealing with the issue of how the beneficial interest of a property is to be shared between two separating cohabitants. The article analyses whether this new approach should be preferred over the traditional Resulting Trust approach. The author explains the two approaches and gives three arguments in support of the Resulting Trust approach. First, it provides a greater degree of certainty, which is crucial in property law. Secondly, the traditional approach is more coherent in principle when comparing to the Common Intention Constructive Trust approach. Thirdly, the author argues that the Resulting Trust approach would not leave the discretion of judges unconfined. Toward the end of the article, the author gives two brief replies to the critics of the Resulting Trust approach. However, the Common Intention Constructive Trust approach is now the law of England and whether the Resulting Trust approach will return remains to be seen.\",\"PeriodicalId\":122771,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IALS Student Law Review\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IALS Student Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14296/ISLR.V6I1.4962\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IALS Student Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14296/ISLR.V6I1.4962","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Yee Ching Leung以Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17和Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53这两个具有里程碑意义的案例为起点,考虑新的共同意向建设性信托方法来处理两个分居的同居人之间如何分享财产的实益权益的问题。本文分析了这种新方法是否优于传统的结果信任方法。作者解释了这两种方法,并给出了支持结果信任方法的三个论据。首先,它提供了更大程度的确定性,这在物权法中至关重要。其次,与共同意图建设性信任方法相比,传统方法在原则上更具连贯性。第三,作者认为,由此产生的信任方法不会使法官的自由裁量权不受限制。在文章的最后,作者对结果信任方法的批评给出了两个简短的答复。然而,共同意图建设性信托方法现在是英国的法律,结果信托方法是否会回归还有待观察。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rethinking the Common Intention Constructive Trusts in Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott – should the Resulting Trusts be preferred?
Yee Ching Leung takes the two landmark cases, Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, as starting points to consider the new Common Intention Constructive Trust approach in dealing with the issue of how the beneficial interest of a property is to be shared between two separating cohabitants. The article analyses whether this new approach should be preferred over the traditional Resulting Trust approach. The author explains the two approaches and gives three arguments in support of the Resulting Trust approach. First, it provides a greater degree of certainty, which is crucial in property law. Secondly, the traditional approach is more coherent in principle when comparing to the Common Intention Constructive Trust approach. Thirdly, the author argues that the Resulting Trust approach would not leave the discretion of judges unconfined. Toward the end of the article, the author gives two brief replies to the critics of the Resulting Trust approach. However, the Common Intention Constructive Trust approach is now the law of England and whether the Resulting Trust approach will return remains to be seen.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信