Equity/Trusts: Possible Qs on Constructive Trusts

If there was an essay question on the topic of constructive trusts, what possible areas do you think it could be about?

I'm just trying to figure out the possibilities and which issues I should maybe focus my on revision a bit more.

Also, if there was a problem Q instead on constructive trusts, what other areas of Equity/Trusts do you think maybe linked into the Q? Implied/Resulting trusts is an obvious one.

Any advice/guidance will be much appreciated.

With constructive trust I would honestly focus in on the issue of Matrimonial Homes and if and when they break down, how the curts decide on the equitable share/ benefit each individual is entitled too. Cases to review are Gissing v Gissing, Pettite v Pettite, Fowler v Barron, and Stack v Dowden.
The issue to consider is intention of the parties not just how much money each has spent or not spent on the marital home. Each case is decided on the individual facts of that case.
Another area I would look at is the area I cal the unwilling trustee, when a third party profits from a transaction ( issue being whether they did this knowingly or not) and how the courts react in these types of situations. Key cases: Royal Brunei Airliine v Tan and Pooly Peck v Nadir

Overall remember that constructive trust s of which there are two types (Institutional & Remedial) are concerned about unconcionability and someone in a fiduciary position benefitting from trust business.

Other key cases to consider: Keech v Sandman and Boardman v Phipps

Hope this helps

Thanks for that, very helpful.

I have revised most of what you have said.

Just one more question: Am i correct in thinking you are referring to Polly Peck v Nadir (No.2)? If so could you please just give me a brief overview of the principle of that case and how it is relevent in this context?

For Knowing Assistance and Knowing receipt, I have it as case in regards to it requiring there to be 'dishonesty' (as opposed to merely constructive knowledge to meet the 4 requirements set out in Baden?)

Thanks.

Yes that is the case that I was referring to (stupid predictive text caused me to write it wrong LOL). Basically the question was asked whether the Central Bank knowingly aided Nadir in his fraud... It was held that though they helped him in his endeavor there was insufficient evidence proving that they knew what he was doing was fraudulent, which was alsowhy the tracing claim failed as well.