This presumption could serve as an affirmative defense in petitions to establish a resulting trust implied by operation of law.
However, when an unrelated party receives substantial value without providing consideration, it's usually presumed that they hold the property in trust for the transferor, unless proven as a gift.
This exception arises from the fiduciary duty spouses owe each other, based on a special trusted relationship implying utmost good faith and fair dealing.
Tinsley v Milligan[6] exemplifies this, where fraudulent intent didn't defeat the presumption of a resulting trust.
Despite the general presumption of resulting trust, this doesn't apply to voluntary transfers of land due to the Law of Property Act 1925 s.60(3).
They can arise when a settlor sets up a trust for a third party, but there's an initial failure due to the lack of defined beneficiaries or changing objectives.
For example, when the settlor names beneficiaries who can't be defined, as in Morice v Bishop of Durham, or when trust objectives become impossible or irrelevant by the time of the transfer, as in Re Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund.
This could be referred to as the Chambers Model of intention, where the settlor intends to retain the beneficial interest in the property but transfers the legal title.
The main remedy, if any trust purposes fail, would be as an unjust enrichment, as seen in Westdeutsche Landesbank v Council of London Borough of Islington.