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, as there was no evidence of intention to gift or advance the car to Louisville Limited; the registration of the car in the company's name did not transfer beneficial ownership, and the resulting trust was not void for want of registration as a charge.

Citation
[2000] 1 ILRM 299
Parties
First Named Respondent: Criminal Assets Bureau; Second Named Respondent / Appellant: 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 Trust, Beneficial Ownership, Personal Property, Registration of Charges, Agency, Gift, Advancement
Equity Trusts Property Law Company Law Resulting Trust Beneficial Ownership Personal Property Registration of Charges +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Criminal Assets Bureau

First Named Respondent

Louisville Limited

Second Named Respondent / Appellant

Peter Bolger

Third Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interpleader Proceedings / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether beneficial ownership of the Mercedes 250 motor car vested in Louisville Limited or Peter 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, as there was no evidence of intention to gift or advance the car to Louisville Limited; the registration of the car in the company's name did not transfer beneficial ownership, and the resulting trust was not void for want of registration as a charge.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; beneficial ownership of the car remains with Peter Bolger; no need to address cross-appeal on agency.