Lohia v Lohia [2001]
Share
Lohia v Lohia [2001] EWCA Civ 1691 is an English land law case that dealt with the interpretation and effect of Section 60(3) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) in relation to the presumed resulting trust concerning transfers of land. The court addressed the impact of Section 60(3) on the necessity for formal language (specifically, the words "unto and to the use of") to prevent the implication of a resulting trust.
The case specifically dealt with the question of whether Section 60(3) of the LPA 1925 had the effect of abolishing the presumed resulting trust in the context of land transfers. Judge Nicholas Strauss QC in the High Court had previously ruled affirmatively on this matter.
In the Court of Appeal, the judges did not explicitly support the High Court's interpretation, but they also refrained from definitively overturning it. Mummery LJ, delivering the opinion, acknowledged that Section 60(3) indeed eliminates the need for formal language, such as "unto and to the use of," to prevent the implication of a resulting trust.
However, crucially, the Court of Appeal did not find it necessary to conclusively determine whether the presumption of resulting trust had been abolished by Section 60(3). This decision was grounded in the understanding that such a determination would not impact the outcome of the case at hand.
In summary, while the Court of Appeal recognised the effect of Section 60(3) in removing the need for specific language in conveyances, it did not provide a definitive stance on whether this section abolished the presumed resulting trust. The decision rested on the understanding that, in the specific context of the case, the question of the presumed resulting trust's abolition under Section 60(3) did not alter the ultimate outcome.
The case specifically dealt with the question of whether Section 60(3) of the LPA 1925 had the effect of abolishing the presumed resulting trust in the context of land transfers. Judge Nicholas Strauss QC in the High Court had previously ruled affirmatively on this matter.
In the Court of Appeal, the judges did not explicitly support the High Court's interpretation, but they also refrained from definitively overturning it. Mummery LJ, delivering the opinion, acknowledged that Section 60(3) indeed eliminates the need for formal language, such as "unto and to the use of," to prevent the implication of a resulting trust.
However, crucially, the Court of Appeal did not find it necessary to conclusively determine whether the presumption of resulting trust had been abolished by Section 60(3). This decision was grounded in the understanding that such a determination would not impact the outcome of the case at hand.
In summary, while the Court of Appeal recognised the effect of Section 60(3) in removing the need for specific language in conveyances, it did not provide a definitive stance on whether this section abolished the presumed resulting trust. The decision rested on the understanding that, in the specific context of the case, the question of the presumed resulting trust's abolition under Section 60(3) did not alter the ultimate outcome.
