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).

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.

[2] Therefore, in cases where the presumption of advancement does not apply, a plaintiff can establish his equitable interest in the property without relying in any way on the underlying illegal transaction.

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.Curiously the House of Lords treated the sole question to be answered as one of illegality in relation to contract.