Tinsley v Milligan
| Tinsley v Milligan | |
|---|---|
| Court | House of Lords |
| Citation(s) | [1993] UKHL 3 [1994] 1 AC 340 |
| Keywords | |
| Illegality, resulting trust, presumption | |
Tinsley v Milligan [1993] UKHL 3 is an English trusts law case, concerning resulting trusts, the presumption of advancement and illegality.
Facts
Miss Tinsley sought possession of a house that was solely in her name. Her relationship with her partner, Miss Milligan, had come to an end. Miss Milligan had been living there and had contributed to the purchase price. It had been in Tinsley’s name alone when they bought it, as a way of claiming more in social security. Milligan later repented and confessed to the benefit fraud. Then Tinsley moved out and sought possession of the house, arguing she was solely entitled. Miss Milligan pleaded that it was the common intention that the property should belong to both of them (and so did not need to rely on the illegality).
Judgment
The House of Lords held that because Miss Milligan could invoke the presumption of a resulting trust without relying on the illegal purpose, she did have a share in the house. Miss Tinsley would have to rely on her intention to defraud the social security system to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust and get the property in her own name. Lord Browne-Wilkinson said the following.[1]
| “ | Only in the reply and the course of Miss Milligan’s cross examination did such illegality emerge: it was Miss Tinsley who had to rely on that illegality....
...Although the presumption of advancement does not directly arise for consideration in this case, it is important when considering the decided cases to understand its operation. On a transfer from a man to his wife, children or others to whom he stands in loco parentis, equity presumes an intention to make a gift. Therefore in such a case, unlike the case where the presumption of resulting trust applies, in order to establish any claim the plaintiff has himself to lead evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of gift and in so doing will normally have to plead, and give evidence of, the underlying illegal purpose. |
” |
See also
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- English trusts law
Notes
- ↑ [1994] 1 AC 340, 371-2