law
different scholars and case laws have presented arguments for this imperative decision in a battle to have flexibility and equitability. The first is the achievement of flexibility and adaptability amidst evolving cultural differences. In the previous discussion, the common law’s rigidity has raised concerns about the current practicality. Therefore, an extension of the resulting form would consider the diversity of the changing societal norms and cohabitation as a recent development in social dynamics. An excellent example of the impact of flexibility was revealed in Jones V Kernott 2011. The basis of the case involved cohabitating partners where a decision on beneficiaries of property ownership had not been previously stipulated in the common law. However, the ruling from the supreme law emphasized that societal norms on cohabitation had yet to be covered, and the extension of the resulting trusts would cover modern living arrangements.
Furthermore, the resulting law should be expanded to enhance and promote fairness and equity. This refers to the situation of community differences or family dynamics. Picking from the Jones V Kernott 2011 case, the Supreme Court recognized the the resulting trust based on the parties’ intentions. In other words, ensure each party receives a share of property rights as they have equally contributed. A similar judgement was held by the court of appeal in Laska V Laska 2008, a family dispute where the family property was purchased under the name of one family member. Notably, the existing common law framework did not address cases where a formal trust deed and rights in family relationships would be missing. In the ruling, the judge held that Rini (claimant) had a 4% share and Zubera would not take whole possession of the property despite having his name and bargained for a discount. This reflects that the resulting law needs to have legal involvement in trusts where family ownership is involved.
Also, consideration for addressing unforeseen changes needs expansion of the resulting law. That is, the framework for the resulting law is based on specific categories associated with the nature and structure of the property at hand. However, evolving society and economic situations present complexities that are difficult to judge based on the existing framework. For instance, in 2007, the United Kingdom was presented with the Stack V Dowden case, where the main issues were beneficial ownership after business expansion. That is the advancement of business ventures—the existing resulting relied on assumptions that each party would receive their capital contribution. The court ruling supported Mr Dowden for his higher contribution towards business growth; however, the judgment is based on assumption. This creates the need for future uncertainty to be considered in the law’s expansion, lowering the number of rulings made from a presumed argument or involving the existence of a valid trust.
Apart from the ability to address the existing law’s shortcomings, another significant reason for the expansion is promoting innovation and creativity. In most cases, the presumption in the resulting trust happened where the original property rights holder did not have a proper arrangement for the future property and beneficiaries. That makes it easy for trustees to exercise digression and distribute their assets on time. This was the first help necessary in the Re Baden’s deed trust. In this case, the court of appeal held that the trust was evidentially particular and property rights would be as per the deed. By accepting this, the court emphasizes the need for trustees to se creativity in scripting a deed, especially in estate planning. Also, beneficiaries can request their trustees to plan plans to ensure the ruling will not be based on presumed trust or in any way have a rebuttal of the presumption of the resulting trust.
Furthermore, the need for expansion can be described as a desire to have more clarity and profitability. Noting that the resulting trust cases are based on presumption and may be open to misinterpretation, expanding the law would bring clarity and support the predictability of the court ruling. In other words, this will help claimants and trusses have a legal framework for the required procedures and potential judgment. They are lowering uncertainties and litigation costs incurred in seeking justice overall. Overall, the need for expansion is not limited to fixing common law’s rigidity but seeking to provide equity, fairness and consideration of society and family dynamics.