Fitzpatrick v. Criminal Assets Bureau [1999] IESC 61; [2000] 1 IR 243; [2000] 1 ILRM 299 (28th July, 1999)

Fitzpatrick v. Criminal Assets Bureau [1999] IESC 61; [2000] 1 IR 243; [2000] 1 ILRM 299 (28th July, 1999)

The beneficial ownership of the car remained with Mr. Bolger, who provided the consideration, and there was no evidence of a gift or intention to transfer beneficial ownership to the appellant. The legal title alone vested in the appellant. The resulting trust in favour of Mr. Bolger was valid and did not require registration as a charge under the Companies Act 1963.

Citation
[1999] IESC 61
Parties
First Named Respondent: Criminal Assets Bureau; Appellant / Second Named Respondent: Louisville Limited; Third Named Respondent: Peter Bolger
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Interpleader Proceedings / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Resulting Trusts, Beneficial Ownership of Chattels, Registration of Charges, Agency, Gifts and Advancement
Equity Trusts and Property Law Company Law Resulting Trusts Beneficial Ownership of Chattels Registration of Charges Agency Gifts and Advancement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Criminal Assets Bureau

First Named Respondent

Louisville Limited

Appellant / Second Named Respondent

Peter Bolger

Third Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interpleader Proceedings / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether beneficial ownership of a motor car vested in the appellant or Mr. Bolger
  2. 2 Whether a resulting trust can arise in respect of a chattel
  3. 3 Whether failure to register a resulting trust as a charge under Companies Act 1963 renders it void

Ratio Decidendi

The beneficial ownership of the car remained with Mr. Bolger, who provided the consideration, and there was no evidence of a gift or intention to transfer beneficial ownership to the appellant. The legal title alone vested in the appellant. The resulting trust in favour of Mr. Bolger was valid and did not require registration as a charge under the Companies Act 1963.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; trial judge's decision affirmed