Jump to content

Tribe v Tribe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legis (talk | contribs) at 20:17, 29 July 2015 (presumption of advancement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Tribe v Tribe
CourtCourt of Appeal
Citations[1995] EWCA Civ 20, [1996] Ch 107
Keywords
Illegality, presumption, shares

Tribe v Tribe [1995] EWCA Civ 20 is an English trusts law case, concerning resulting trusts, the presumption of advancement and illegality.

Facts

A father transferred company shares to his son (presumption of advancement) to preserve them for the family’s benefit because he could be soon liable for dilapidations under commercial leases. It turned out he was not liable. The son refused to re-transfer shares.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal held that the father could demand return of the shares, because his illegal scheme had not in fact been carried into effect. Millett LJ said it was true that an illegal purpose cannot rebut the presumption of advancement, but because the illegal purpose had not been carried out, the father was not precluded of pleading the purpose to claim a resulting trust.

See also

Notes

References