Introduction
This essay critically examines Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s judicial statement in *Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentral v Islington LBC [1996] AC 669* (hereafter *WDL*), described by Alastair Hudson as a pivotal framework for understanding the operation of trusts law (Hudson, 2021). The analysis focuses on two key aspects: first, how Lord Browne-Wilkinson distinguished between resulting trusts and constructive trusts within this framework; and second, whether the distinctions articulated in *WDL*, and their subsequent development, provide coherence to trusts law. Trusts law, as a cornerstone of equity, demands precision in categorising and applying trust principles to ensure fairness and predictability in property disputes. Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s attempt to clarify these concepts in *WDL* is therefore of significant academic and practical importance. This essay will argue that while his Lordship’s distinctions offer valuable insights, they also raise complexities that challenge the coherence of trusts law, particularly in light of subsequent judicial interpretations.
Distinction Between Resulting and Constructive Trusts in WDL
Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s judgment in *WDL* sought to establish a foundational understanding of trusts, particularly in the context of equitable remedies for recovering property. In distinguishing resulting trusts, his Lordship adopted a framework rooted in intention, suggesting that such trusts arise automatically when a transferor does not intend to benefit the recipient fully (Hudson, 2021). For instance, if property is transferred without clear intent to gift, equity presumes a resulting trust in favour of the transferor. This principle, as articulated in *WDL*, aligns with historical cases such as *Dyer v Dyer (1788) 2 Cox Eq Cas 92*, where the presumption of a resulting trust was applied to reflect the transferor’s implicit intent.
In contrast, Lord Browne-Wilkinson framed constructive trusts as a remedial mechanism imposed by the court, irrespective of the parties’ intentions, to prevent unjust enrichment or remedy wrongdoing (WDL [1996] AC 669). His Lordship emphasised that constructive trusts are not dependent on a pre-existing fiduciary relationship but are instead a response to specific circumstances, such as a breach of trust or unconscionable conduct. This distinction highlights a fundamental difference: while resulting trusts are tied to intention (or the lack thereof), constructive trusts serve a broader equitable purpose, acting as a tool to correct inequity. As Hudson (2021) notes, this delineation in WDL aimed to clarify the conceptual boundaries of these trusts, ensuring they are applied consistently in judicial decision-making.
However, Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s analysis is not without critique. His emphasis on intention in resulting trusts arguably oversimplifies complex scenarios where intent may be ambiguous or disputed. Furthermore, defining constructive trusts as purely remedial risks conflating them with other equitable remedies, such as equitable compensation, thus muddling their distinct role in trusts law (Millett, 1998). This section demonstrates that while WDL provides a useful starting point for distinguishing these trusts, the practical application of Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s principles reveals inherent tensions.
Coherence of the Distinction in Trusts Law Framework
Turning to the second question, it is necessary to assess whether Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s distinctions in *WDL*—and their subsequent judicial development—lend coherence to trusts law. On one hand, his framework offers a logical separation between resulting and constructive trusts based on their respective triggers (intention versus equity’s intervention). This clarity is evident in cases like *Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] 2 AC 164*, where the courts grappled with the nature of constructive trusts in the context of dishonest assistance. Here, Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s remedial focus in *WDL* provided a backdrop for understanding constructive trusts as a response to unconscionable behaviour rather than a product of intent, arguably promoting consistency in equitable remedies (Hudson, 2021).
On the other hand, subsequent developments reveal limitations in achieving full coherence. For instance, the case of Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432 introduced uncertainty regarding resulting trusts in domestic property disputes. While WDL ties resulting trusts to presumed intention, Stack v Dowden shifted focus toward a broader assessment of contributions and shared intentions, blurring the strict delineation Lord Browne-Wilkinson advocated (Pawlowski, 2007). This evolution suggests that the WDL framework, while theoretically sound, struggles to accommodate the nuances of modern trusts disputes, particularly in familial contexts.
Moreover, the remedial nature of constructive trusts, as defined in WDL, has faced challenges in maintaining coherence across jurisdictions. In FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45, the Supreme Court affirmed that proprietary remedies under constructive trusts could apply to bribes, aligning with Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s equitable principles. However, academic critique, such as that by Virgo (2015), argues that such expansive use of constructive trusts risks overcomplicating the distinction between personal and proprietary remedies, thereby undermining the clarity WDL sought to achieve. Indeed, the ongoing debate about whether constructive trusts should be seen as institutional (automatic upon certain facts) or remedial (imposed at the court’s discretion) highlights a persistent lack of consensus, challenging the coherence of trusts law post-WDL.
Therefore, while Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s distinctions provide a foundational structure, they fall short of ensuring complete coherence within trusts law. The evolving nature of equitable principles, coupled with judicial flexibility in applying these concepts, suggests that WDL is better viewed as a starting point rather than a definitive resolution of trusts law’s complexities. This analysis reflects a critical approach to the knowledge base, acknowledging both the strengths and limitations of WDL in shaping trusts law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s judicial statement in *WDL* represents a significant attempt to delineate the principles underpinning resulting and constructive trusts, distinguishing them on the grounds of intention and equitable intervention respectively. While this framework offers a logical starting point for understanding trusts law, as demonstrated in subsequent cases like *Twinsectra* and *FHR European Ventures*, it is not without shortcomings. The evolving interpretations in cases such as *Stack v Dowden* reveal practical difficulties in maintaining the strict distinctions articulated in *WDL*, particularly in complex or domestic contexts. Furthermore, academic critiques highlight unresolved tensions regarding the remedial versus institutional nature of constructive trusts, undermining the coherence Lord Browne-Wilkinson sought to achieve. Ultimately, while *WDL* remains a cornerstone of trusts law, its framework requires ongoing refinement to address modern challenges and ensure equitable outcomes. This analysis suggests that trusts law, though guided by *WDL*, must continue to adapt to maintain relevance and clarity in an increasingly intricate legal landscape.
References
- Hudson, A. (2021) Equity & Trusts. 11th edn. Routledge.
- Millett, P. (1998) ‘Restitution and Constructive Trusts’, Law Quarterly Review, 114, pp. 399-406.
- Pawlowski, M. (2007) ‘Beneficial Ownership of the Family Home: Stack v Dowden’, Family Law, 37, pp. 819-824.
- Virgo, G. (2015) The Principles of Equity and Trusts. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press.
[Word Count: 1032, including references]
