1
00:00:00,100 --> 00:00:03,200
Constructive trust a 
constructive, trust is an 

2
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:06,200
equitable remedy imposed by a 
court to benefit a party that 

3
00:00:06,200 --> 00:00:08,800
has been wrongfully deprived of 
its rights due to either a 

4
00:00:08,800 --> 00:00:11,600
person obtaining or holding a 
legal property, right? 

5
00:00:11,600 --> 00:00:14,300
Which they should not possess 
due to, and just enrichment or 

6
00:00:14,300 --> 00:00:17,900
interference, or due to a breach
of fiduciary duty, which is 

7
00:00:17,900 --> 00:00:20,700
inter causative with unjust 
enrichment, and or property 

8
00:00:20,700 --> 00:00:23,200
interference, it is a type of 
implied. 

9
00:00:23,200 --> 00:00:26,800
Trust, for example, it is 
created by conduct not 

10
00:00:26,800 --> 00:00:29,900
explicitly by a settler in the 
United States. 

11
00:00:30,000 --> 00:00:32,299
It's in contrast to England a 
Constructor. 

12
00:00:32,299 --> 00:00:35,400
Trust remedy, generally does not
recognize or create any 

13
00:00:35,400 --> 00:00:37,800
continuing fiduciary 
relationship. 

14
00:00:37,800 --> 00:00:40,800
That is a constructive. 
Trust is not actually a trust, 

15
00:00:40,800 --> 00:00:44,400
except in name rather. 
It is a fiction declaring that 

16
00:00:44,400 --> 00:00:47,400
the plaintiff has Equitable 
Title to the property at issue 

17
00:00:47,500 --> 00:00:50,400
and ordering the defendant to 
transfer legal ownership and 

18
00:00:50,400 --> 00:00:53,800
possession to the plaintiff. 
For instance, in some states, 

19
00:00:53,800 --> 00:00:56,600
the Slayer rule is implemented 
in the form of a constructive. 

20
00:00:56,600 --> 00:01:01,900
Trust definition, constructive. 
Are imposed by operation of law.

21
00:01:02,300 --> 00:01:04,800
They are also referred to as 
implied trusts. 

22
00:01:05,300 --> 00:01:08,700
They are not subject to 
formality requirements, unlike a

23
00:01:08,700 --> 00:01:12,200
resulting trust which also 
arises by operation of law. 

24
00:01:12,200 --> 00:01:15,200
A constructive trust is not give
effect to the imputed or 

25
00:01:15,200 --> 00:01:16,900
presumed intention of the 
parties. 

26
00:01:17,400 --> 00:01:19,800
Instead. 
Constructive trusts are largely 

27
00:01:19,800 --> 00:01:22,000
said to be triggered by 
unconscionability. 

28
00:01:22,500 --> 00:01:24,900
This is the idea that a 
defendant would be unjustly 

29
00:01:24,900 --> 00:01:27,900
enriched if they were allowed to
keep property for themselves. 

30
00:01:28,300 --> 00:01:30,600
The main issue with this 
argument Is that we would have 

31
00:01:30,600 --> 00:01:33,400
to have a really broad approach 
to unjust enrichment in order 

32
00:01:33,400 --> 00:01:35,200
for a constructive trust to come
under. 

33
00:01:35,200 --> 00:01:38,000
That underpinning Concept in 
order for us to understand 

34
00:01:38,000 --> 00:01:41,200
constructive trust. 
This statement is incoherent and

35
00:01:41,200 --> 00:01:45,400
without any basis in law or fact
events generating constructive 

36
00:01:45,400 --> 00:01:49,800
trusts breach of fiduciary duty 
in a constructive, trust the 

37
00:01:49,800 --> 00:01:52,300
defendant breaches a duty owed 
to the plaintiff. 

38
00:01:52,700 --> 00:01:56,400
The most common such breach is a
breach of fiduciary duty such as

39
00:01:56,400 --> 00:01:59,200
when an agent wrongfully, 
obtains or holds property owned 

40
00:01:59,200 --> 00:02:02,300
by a. 
A controversial example is the 

41
00:02:02,300 --> 00:02:05,400
case of attorney general for 
Hong Kong be read in which a 

42
00:02:05,408 --> 00:02:08,300
senior prosecutor took bribes, 
Matha prosecute, certain 

43
00:02:08,300 --> 00:02:11,900
offenders with the bride money. 
He purchased property in New 

44
00:02:11,900 --> 00:02:15,700
Zealand, his employer. 
The Attorney General sought a 

45
00:02:15,708 --> 00:02:18,600
declaration that the property 
was held on constructive trust 

46
00:02:18,600 --> 00:02:21,600
for it on the basis of breach of
fiduciary duty. 

47
00:02:22,100 --> 00:02:24,700
The privy Council, awarded a 
constructive trust. 

48
00:02:25,100 --> 00:02:28,400
The case is different from Regal
Hastings, limited V. 

49
00:02:28,400 --> 00:02:31,000
Gulliver because there was no 
interference with a 

50
00:02:31,000 --> 00:02:33,600
profit-making opportunity that 
properly belong to the 

51
00:02:33,600 --> 00:02:36,700
prosecutor being a privy Council
decision. 

52
00:02:36,800 --> 00:02:40,000
Re did not overrule the previous
decision of the court of appeal 

53
00:02:40,000 --> 00:02:43,700
of England and Wales and mr. 
V stubs which held the opposite 

54
00:02:43,700 --> 00:02:46,700
partially because a trust is a 
very strong remedy that gives 

55
00:02:46,700 --> 00:02:49,400
proprietary rights to the 
claimant not enjoyed by the 

56
00:02:49,400 --> 00:02:52,700
defendants other creditors in 
the event of the defendants 

57
00:02:52,700 --> 00:02:56,100
insolvency the trust assets are 
Untouchable by the general 

58
00:02:56,100 --> 00:02:59,700
creditors supporters of Lister 
suggested that there was no 

59
00:02:59,700 --> 00:03:01,200
good. 
Reason to put the victim of 

60
00:03:01,200 --> 00:03:04,300
wrongdoing ahead of other 
creditors of the estate, there 

61
00:03:04,300 --> 00:03:07,200
was a tension in English law 
between Lister and read which 

62
00:03:07,200 --> 00:03:09,200
was highlighted in Sinclair 
Investments. 

63
00:03:09,400 --> 00:03:13,200
UK limited V Versailles trade 
Finance limited the United 

64
00:03:13,200 --> 00:03:16,200
Kingdom, Supreme Court, 
subsequently overruled, Sinclair

65
00:03:16,200 --> 00:03:19,600
and fhr, European Ventures, 
Allah o, PD Cedar Capital 

66
00:03:19,600 --> 00:03:23,300
Partners, LLC holding that 
Lister was no longer, good law, 

67
00:03:23,700 --> 00:03:27,500
property interference in 
foskett, V McEwen, a trustee use

68
00:03:27,500 --> 00:03:30,300
trust money together with some 
of his own money to Purchase a 

69
00:03:30,300 --> 00:03:34,900
life insurance policy, then he 
committed suicide, the insurance

70
00:03:34,900 --> 00:03:38,700
company paid out to his family. 
The de frauded, beneficiaries of

71
00:03:38,700 --> 00:03:41,400
the trust sought a declaration 
that the proceeds were held on 

72
00:03:41,400 --> 00:03:44,700
constructive trust for them. 
The House of Lords said that the

73
00:03:44,700 --> 00:03:48,400
beneficiaries could choose 
between either a, a constructive

74
00:03:48,400 --> 00:03:51,400
trust over the proceeds, for the
proportion of the life-insurance

75
00:03:51,400 --> 00:03:55,200
payout, purchased with their 
money or be an equitable lien 

76
00:03:55,200 --> 00:03:57,400
over the fund for the repayment 
of that amount. 

77
00:03:57,700 --> 00:03:59,800
There's controversy as to what 
the true basis. 

78
00:04:00,000 --> 00:04:03,000
Is of this, trust the House of 
Lords said that it was to 

79
00:04:03,000 --> 00:04:06,000
vindicate the plaintiffs 
original proprietary rights. 

80
00:04:06,500 --> 00:04:09,800
However, this reasoning has been
criticized as Tata August by 

81
00:04:09,800 --> 00:04:12,700
some Scholars who suggests the 
better basis is unjust 

82
00:04:12,700 --> 00:04:15,100
enrichment. 
This is because there must be a 

83
00:04:15,100 --> 00:04:17,600
reason why a new property right 
is created. 

84
00:04:17,600 --> 00:04:20,000
For example, the trust. 
And that must be because 

85
00:04:20,000 --> 00:04:22,900
otherwise, the family would be 
unjustly enriched by receiving 

86
00:04:22,900 --> 00:04:25,400
the proceeds of the insurance 
policy purchase with a 

87
00:04:25,408 --> 00:04:29,100
beneficiary's money interference
with a plaintiffs property can 

88
00:04:29,100 --> 00:04:32,000
justify why Why the plaintiff 
can get its property back from a

89
00:04:32,000 --> 00:04:35,200
thief but it cannot explain why 
new rights are generated in 

90
00:04:35,200 --> 00:04:37,800
property for which the 
plaintiffs original property is 

91
00:04:37,800 --> 00:04:41,000
swapped in. 
Foskett V, McEwen the plaintiffs

92
00:04:41,000 --> 00:04:44,500
original property was an 
interest in the trust fund the 

93
00:04:44,500 --> 00:04:45,500
remedy. 
They obtained with a 

94
00:04:45,508 --> 00:04:48,100
constructive trust over an 
insurance payout. 

95
00:04:48,500 --> 00:04:50,500
It is not obvious. 
Why such a new right? 

96
00:04:50,500 --> 00:04:53,300
Should be awarded without saying
it is to reverse the family's 

97
00:04:53,300 --> 00:04:57,500
unjust enrichment, unjust 
enrichment, in Chase, Manhattan 

98
00:04:57,500 --> 00:05:01,700
Bank Navi, Israel, British Bank 
Then limited One Bank paid, 

99
00:05:01,700 --> 00:05:04,600
another bank a large sum of 
money by mistake note that the 

100
00:05:04,600 --> 00:05:06,900
recipient bank did not do 
anything wrong. 

101
00:05:07,100 --> 00:05:10,100
It just received money not about
to it Goulding J. 

102
00:05:10,100 --> 00:05:13,500
Held that the money was held on 
constructive trust for the First

103
00:05:13,500 --> 00:05:16,400
Bank. 
The reasoning in this case has 

104
00:05:16,400 --> 00:05:19,700
been doubted and in West Orange 
landy's bank, erosion trial, V 

105
00:05:19,700 --> 00:05:22,300
Islington London Borough, 
Council the House of Lords 

106
00:05:22,300 --> 00:05:25,500
distanced itself from the idea 
that unjust enrichment, raises 

107
00:05:25,500 --> 00:05:29,800
trust in the claimants favor. 
This remains an area of intense.

108
00:05:29,900 --> 00:05:33,200
Ever see these types of trusts 
are called institutional 

109
00:05:33,200 --> 00:05:36,000
constructive trusts. 
They arise the moment, the 

110
00:05:36,000 --> 00:05:40,500
relevant conduct breach of Duty 
unjust enrichment, Etc occurs. 

111
00:05:41,000 --> 00:05:43,900
They can be contrasted with 
remedial constructive trusts 

112
00:05:44,000 --> 00:05:46,800
which arise on the date of 
judgment as a remedy, awarded by

113
00:05:46,800 --> 00:05:50,300
the court to do justice. 
In a particular case, an example

114
00:05:50,300 --> 00:05:52,300
is the Australian case Miskin 
skeevy. 

115
00:05:52,300 --> 00:05:56,100
Dad's a de facto couple lived in
a house owned by the man. 

116
00:05:56,600 --> 00:05:59,800
They agreed to make improvements
to the property by building a 

117
00:05:59,900 --> 00:06:03,700
Shed for the woman to do arts 
and crafts work in the woman 

118
00:06:03,700 --> 00:06:07,200
paid for part of this. 
They then broke up the high 

119
00:06:07,200 --> 00:06:10,000
court held that the man held the
property on constructive trust 

120
00:06:10,000 --> 00:06:12,800
for himself and the woman in the
proportions in which they had 

121
00:06:12,800 --> 00:06:16,500
contributed to the improvements 
to the land, this trust did not 

122
00:06:16,500 --> 00:06:18,100
arise. 
The moment, the woman commenced 

123
00:06:18,100 --> 00:06:21,500
improvements that conduct did 
not involve a breach of Duty or 

124
00:06:21,500 --> 00:06:24,300
an unjust enrichment. 
Etc, the trust arose at the date

125
00:06:24,300 --> 00:06:28,500
of judgment to do justice in the
case, in Bathurst city council V

126
00:06:28,500 --> 00:06:31,600
PW C property, He's the high 
court that is constructive. 

127
00:06:31,600 --> 00:06:34,300
Trusts are the most severe 
remedy in cases, of breach of 

128
00:06:34,300 --> 00:06:37,600
fiduciary duty, they should only
be imposed when other remedies 

129
00:06:37,600 --> 00:06:41,100
are inappropriate in providing 
relief, common intention 

130
00:06:41,100 --> 00:06:44,700
constructive trusts common 
intention constructive, trust 

131
00:06:44,700 --> 00:06:46,600
consider, the intention of the 
parties. 

132
00:06:47,100 --> 00:06:50,000
This is significantly found in 
the familial context. 

133
00:06:50,400 --> 00:06:53,700
For example, do the cohabitants 
of a beneficial interest in 

134
00:06:53,700 --> 00:06:56,900
their home here. 
Equity will follow the law. 

135
00:06:57,400 --> 00:07:00,100
Following stack, feed out an 
equity will look at the Mr. 

136
00:07:00,100 --> 00:07:02,600
Donor is a property and then 
distributed in those 

137
00:07:02,600 --> 00:07:05,800
proportions. 
For example, if the parties had 

138
00:07:05,800 --> 00:07:08,700
joint legal ownership of a 
property, then there is a strong

139
00:07:08,700 --> 00:07:11,200
presumption that they have a 
beneficial interest. 

140
00:07:11,600 --> 00:07:15,100
However, in those cases, with 
the cohabitants, one person has 

141
00:07:15,100 --> 00:07:17,900
legal title. 
In that case, the sole owner 

142
00:07:17,900 --> 00:07:20,600
would be presumed to have sole 
beneficial ownership. 

143
00:07:21,000 --> 00:07:23,600
This can be problematic in 
circumstances where the other 

144
00:07:23,600 --> 00:07:26,900
cohabitant, the one who doesn't 
have title, does a lot to 

145
00:07:26,900 --> 00:07:29,700
improve the property, you just 
contributes to it in some way. 

146
00:07:29,800 --> 00:07:32,500
Way, this can however be 
rebutted. 

147
00:07:32,500 --> 00:07:36,100
If there was common intention to
hold the property differently in

148
00:07:36,100 --> 00:07:39,300
such cases, the courts will find
a constructive trust in those 

149
00:07:39,300 --> 00:07:42,500
proportions. 
Actual inferred and imputed 

150
00:07:42,500 --> 00:07:45,000
intention. 
If there is no evidence of 

151
00:07:45,000 --> 00:07:48,100
actual intention, the courts 
will search for inferred or 

152
00:07:48,100 --> 00:07:51,600
imputed intention in Jones V 
Kern at the Supreme Court 

153
00:07:51,600 --> 00:07:53,300
inferred intention to the 
parties. 

154
00:07:53,800 --> 00:07:57,100
Therefore, imputed intention 
involves a lot more judicial 

155
00:07:57,100 --> 00:07:59,400
discretion. 
Where is invert intention is 

156
00:07:59,400 --> 00:08:02,200
still Those to be based on the 
conduct between the parties 

157
00:08:02,600 --> 00:08:06,100
joint venture the focus, here is
the joint venture between the 

158
00:08:06,100 --> 00:08:09,500
claimant and the defendant for 
there to be a joint venture. 

159
00:08:09,500 --> 00:08:12,200
It would be unconscionable for 
the defendant to deny the other 

160
00:08:12,200 --> 00:08:14,500
parties beneficial interest in 
the property. 

161
00:08:14,900 --> 00:08:17,700
The three main requirements for 
a joint venture constructive 

162
00:08:17,700 --> 00:08:21,200
trust our one an arrangement or 
understanding between the 

163
00:08:21,200 --> 00:08:25,700
parties to Reliance on that 
Arrangement or understanding and

164
00:08:25,700 --> 00:08:30,200
three an inconsistent act Bender
under a specifically in Possible

165
00:08:30,200 --> 00:08:33,799
contract for sale, the seller 
holds land on a constructive 

166
00:08:33,799 --> 00:08:37,799
trust for the purchaser. 
However this is limited in 

167
00:08:37,799 --> 00:08:39,900
Rainer V Preston. 
The claimant had purchased a 

168
00:08:39,908 --> 00:08:42,900
property from the defendant but 
the house was then destroyed in 

169
00:08:42,900 --> 00:08:46,300
the fire before they could move 
in the defendant received a big 

170
00:08:46,300 --> 00:08:49,100
payout from the insurance 
company and refused to give that

171
00:08:49,100 --> 00:08:52,000
money to the claimant. 
It was held at the claimant was 

172
00:08:52,000 --> 00:08:54,600
not entitled to the payout 
because it was not the trust 

173
00:08:54,600 --> 00:08:57,500
property and because of the 
nature of the dispute, the 

174
00:08:57,500 --> 00:08:59,700
trustee only had a low standard 
of care. 

175
00:08:59,900 --> 00:09:03,200
Particularly, when you compare 
it to an Express trustee the 

176
00:09:03,200 --> 00:09:06,500
purchaser also cannot transfer 
their beneficial interest before

177
00:09:06,500 --> 00:09:10,900
receiving legal title voluntary 
transactions, made by mistake, 

178
00:09:11,300 --> 00:09:13,900
the court can set aside a gift 
or disposition where the 

179
00:09:13,900 --> 00:09:17,100
transfer was made by mistake. 
The property must have been 

180
00:09:17,100 --> 00:09:20,500
transferred by deed. 
Not an oral agreement usefulness

181
00:09:20,500 --> 00:09:24,400
of constructive, trusts, for 
example, if the defendants deals

182
00:09:24,400 --> 00:09:27,500
100,000 dollars from the 
plaintiff and uses that money to

183
00:09:27,500 --> 00:09:29,600
buy a house, the court can trace
the house. 

184
00:09:29,800 --> 00:09:32,400
Back to the plaintiffs money and
Dean the house to be held in 

185
00:09:32,400 --> 00:09:35,300
trust for the plaintiff. 
The defendant must then convey 

186
00:09:35,300 --> 00:09:37,000
title to the house to the 
plaintiff. 

187
00:09:37,100 --> 00:09:40,400
Even if Rising property values 
had appreciated the value of the

188
00:09:40,400 --> 00:09:44,300
house to 120,000 dollars by the 
time, the transaction occurred. 

189
00:09:44,700 --> 00:09:47,600
If the value of the house had 
instead depreciated to eighty 

190
00:09:47,600 --> 00:09:50,900
thousand dollars, the plaintiff 
could demand a remedy at law 

191
00:09:51,000 --> 00:09:54,100
money, damages equal to the 
amount stolen instead of an 

192
00:09:54,100 --> 00:09:57,300
equitable remedy, the situation 
would be different if the 

193
00:09:57,300 --> 00:10:00,600
defendant had mixed his own 
property with that of the - for 

194
00:10:00,600 --> 00:10:04,000
example, adding 50 thousand 
dollars of his own money to the 

195
00:10:04,000 --> 00:10:07,900
100,000 dollars, stolen from the
plaintiff and buying a 150 

196
00:10:07,900 --> 00:10:11,700
thousand dollar house or using 
plaintiffs, 100,000 dollars to 

197
00:10:11,700 --> 00:10:13,900
add a room to the defendants 
existing house. 

198
00:10:14,400 --> 00:10:16,800
The constructive trust would 
still be available but in 

199
00:10:16,800 --> 00:10:19,900
proportion to the contributions,
not wholly in the claimants 

200
00:10:19,900 --> 00:10:22,600
favor. 
Alternatively, the claimant 

201
00:10:22,600 --> 00:10:25,400
could elect for an equitable 
lien instead, which is like a 

202
00:10:25,408 --> 00:10:28,800
mortgage over the asset to 
secure repayment because a 

203
00:10:28,800 --> 00:10:31,300
constructive What is an 
equitable device? 

204
00:10:31,300 --> 00:10:34,000
The defendant can raise all of 
the available Equitable 

205
00:10:34,000 --> 00:10:37,700
defenses, against it including 
unclean hands, watches, 

206
00:10:37,800 --> 00:10:40,200
detrimental, Reliance and undue 
hardship.