The Student Room Group

Help on the law of 'gifts'

Does anyone know what the relevant legislation on 'gifts' is?

For example gifts in sums of money or property. I think they are called 'inter vivos gifts'. I have found a lot of information online but no references to relevant legislation.

Thanks in advance!
Legislation in respect to what aspect of gifts exactly? It's difficult to understand what you're looking for from your post. There is no legislation that expressly permits or prohibits gifts, it's simply an aspect of owning property that one can gift it away.

If you're interested in the taxation of gifts then that is covered mainly by the IHT Act 1986 - as to gifts to individuals look at the rules on 'potentially exempt transfers', as to certain tax-exempt gifts look at ss 18 et seq.
Reply 2
Avatar for klr
klr
OP
Gifts in property law. In the judgment of Sekhon v Alissa (1989) for example, it was stated that a resulting trust would arise from the transfer of money of mother to the daigher to enable her to purchase a house, unless proven otherwise that it was a 'gift'; in which case the presumption of a resulting trust would be rebutted.
This is precisely what I am looking for. Requirements under which a 'gift' in property law can be justified.


I have been looking for several hours for relevant case law or a source which would mention exactly where I could find the relevant laws but without luck.


I think they are legally called 'inter vivos' gifts. But according to the research I've done most cases of intervivos gifts relate to wills. The scenario I am investigating has nothing to do with wills.
Original post by klr

I think they are legally called 'inter vivos' gifts. But according to the research I've done most cases of intervivos gifts relate to wills. The scenario I am investigating has nothing to do with wills.


An inter vivos gift has nothing to do with wills - by definition. 'Inter vivos' is Latin for 'between the living', and a gift in a will is obviously made by someone who is dead.

For the other part of your question, there are no relevant statutes (except s 199 Equality Act 2010, see below). In Pettit v Pettit, Lord Diplock stated 'the equitable presumptions of intention are no more than a consensus of judicial opinion disclosed by reported cases as to the most likely inference of fact to be drawn in the absence of any evidence to the contrary'. So the presumptions are simply a question of the burden of proof, not a rule of law at all.

Depending on the relationship, the presumption is either one of 'resulting trust', or of 'advancement'. Any Equity or Land Law textbook ought to explain when these arise. The presumptions are easily rebutted by factual evidence, so what is most important are the facts. For example, between friends the presumption is of resulting trust. So in the absence of any evidence, if my friend gives me property I will hold it on resulting trust for him. But if he hands me property which is gift-wrapped, with a note on it saying 'Happy Birthday', and it is my birthday, the evidence will rebut that presumption and I will receive the property absolutely.

Note that when s 199 of the Equality Act 2010 comes into force (don't think a date has been set yet), there will no longer be a 'presumption of advancement', so any purported gift will result in a 'presumption of resulting trust'. But as I said above, all that you need to do to rebut that presumption is show evidence that a gift was intended.

re your question yesterday - I would check whether there has ever been a case where paying off a mortgage led to a resulting trust. The issue is that the mortgage payments themselves do not contribute to the acquisition of the property - that is acquired with the bank loan itself. Mortgage payments normally lead to a common intention constructive trust but that probably won't work when the person paying it off is a third party and not one of the occupiers of the home... I know that I mentioned a resulting trust as a possibility yesterday but I am doubting it very much today :smile:

Quick Reply

Latest