The presumption of resulting trust arising from a financial contribution to the purchase price of property acquired in the name of a trustee of a family discretionary trust is not rebutted merely because the contributor was a beneficiary of the trust and a director of the trustee company. The English proposition that the presumption is 'readily rebutted by comparatively slight evidence' (Pettitt v Pettitt) has not been adopted in Australia; the strength of the presumption varies from case to case. Acts done by a party in a dual capacity (as both contracting party and director of the trustee) may constitute acts of part performance where the overarching nature and purpose of the involvement was as a party to the contract.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 34 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 34 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.