Stanley v Kieran [2011] IESC 19 (07 June 2011)

Stanley v Kieran [2011] IESC 19 (07 June 2011)

The Supreme Court held that the appellant provided the purchase money for Brownsbarn House and related lands, raising the presumption of a resulting trust in his favour. The respondents failed to rebut this presumption, as there was no credible evidence of intention to benefit the respondent or of any express agreement. The High Court erred in drawing adverse inferences from the appellant's unchallenged evidence. Thus, the properties and company shares are held on resulting trust for the appellant.

Citation
[2011] IESC 19
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: James Stanley; Defendant/respondent: Mary Kieran (otherwise known as Mary Crawley); Defendant/respondent: River Properties Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
07 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside
Legal Topics
Resulting Trusts, Beneficial Ownership, Presumption of Trust, Rebuttal of Presumption, Property Rights of Cohabitants
Equity Trusts Resulting Trusts Beneficial Ownership Presumption of Trust Rebuttal of Presumption Property Rights of Cohabitants

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Stanley

Plaintiff/appellant

Mary Kieran (otherwise known as Mary Crawley)

Defendant/respondent

River Properties Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a resulting trust arose in favour of the appellant regarding Brownsbarn House and related properties
  2. 2 Whether the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted by the respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the appellant provided the purchase money for Brownsbarn House and related lands, raising the presumption of a resulting trust in his favour. The respondents failed to rebut this presumption, as there was no credible evidence of intention to benefit the respondent or of any express agreement. The High Court erred in drawing adverse inferences from the appellant's unchallenged evidence. Thus, the properties and company shares are held on resulting trust for the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside

Orders

  • Declaration that Brownsbarn House and lands are held by the company on resulting trust for the appellant
  • Declaration that the respondent holds the shares in River Properties Limited in trust for the appellant