... v Cohen1 (1929) Judge Dixon pointed out the following, "where the equity is fastended upon the trustee not because he intended to become the fiduciary of property but because of the character of his dealings and in spite of his intention to take the property for himself." Ahmed invited Jane to come to his house so his dealings or intentions show something of that and also the way in which the house was transferred into joint names. In Jane's case there is relevance of post-acquisition activity, where Ahmed purchased the property and later Jane received a beneficial interest. For Jane's case to succeed she requires proof of three elements, firstly a common intention, secondly change of position and thirdly equitable fraud. Looking at the case of Bannister v Bannister2 shows how the three elements have to be fulfilled. Referring back to Jane's case she had a successful career in London but Ahmed ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now