In this case, Lord Millett expressed the view that a resulting trust arises due to the absence of intention to benefit a recipient of money.

Air Jamaica Ltd had established a pension trust for the benefit of its employees, which was funded by contributions deducted from their salaries.

Conversely, the Court of Appeal determined that the surplus should be managed according to the scheme's regulations, under the supervision of the trustees.

The Privy Council advised that a resulting trust of the surplus funds could still arise in favour of the company, and so it would not be bona vacantia.

Clause 13.3 would usually be void for perpetuity because there was no statutory exemption in Jamaica to the common law rule.

But even if it could, their Lordships are satisfied that it could not be amended in order to confer any interest in the trust fund on the Company.

The Attorney-General contended that neither the Company nor the Members can take any part in the surplus, which has reverted to the Crown as bona vacantia.

It may arise even where the transferor positively wished to part with the beneficial interest, as in Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1967] 2 A.C. 291.

The House of Lords affirmed the principle that a resulting trust is not defeated by evidence that the transferor intended to part with the beneficial interest if he has not in fact succeeded in doing so.

He also considered that he was precluded by statute from "imputing to the employees an intention" that they should receive by means of a resulting trust sums in excess of the maximum permitted by the relevant tax legislation.

Their Lordships consider that it would be more accurate to say that the Members claim such part of the surplus as is attributable to their contributions because they have not received all that they bargained for.

Pension schemes in Jamaica, as in England, need the approval of the Inland Revenue if they are to secure the fiscal advantages that are made available.

The tax legislation in both countries places a limit on the amount which can be paid to the individual employee.

Allowing the employees to enjoy any part of the surplus by way of resulting trust would probably exceed those limits.

This fact is not, however, in their Lordships’ view a proper ground on which to reject the operation of a resulting trust in favour of the employees.

The Inland Revenue had an opportunity to examine the Pension Plan and to withhold approval on the ground that some of its provisions were void for perpetuity.

The resulting trust arises by operation of the general law, dehors the pension scheme and the scope of the relevant tax legislation.

On the separate settlement with mutual insurance analysis which their Lordships have adopted in the present case, however, no such process is required.