|
|
|
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary
Air Jamaica v Charlton (1999)
Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:37 2006
[1999] 1 WLR 1399 (PC). When a company pension fund was wound up, its contributors argued
for a return of their outstanding contributions, even though they had received their expected entitlement.
The argument, in a sense, was the long-standing one about what should happen to the
surplus funds of an UnincorporatedAssociation when it is dissolved. Because the contributors
had been paid off in full, it was argued for the Crown that the surplus money was
BonaVacantia.
Lord Millet stated that, although the prevailing view is that the surplus funds of an
unincorporated association were not required to be returned to their contributors
(e.g., ReWestSussexConstabularyWidowsFund1971), where there is a small number of well-defined
contributors it is just to return their excess contributions.
It was suggested that the mechanism to give effect to this decision was to find that a
resulting trust arose in favour of the contributors, with the association members as its
trustees. Although many academics (notably Birks and Chambers) have argued for an
expanded role of resulting trusts in restitution, this view has not found favour
with the HouseOfLords in recent years (see WestdeutscheVIslington1996), and
this part of the judgement may have to be regarded as out of line with prevailing
authorities. However, if a resulting trust is not the right mechanism to give
effect to the decision that the unincorporated association holds its surplus funds
on trust for its contributors, it is not clear what else is.
CaseLaw
TrustLaw
Law glossary index
|
|
|
|
Shameless plug
|
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK
|
|