当前位置: X-MOL 学术Curr. Leg. Probl. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
The Myth of the Remedial Constructive Trust
Current Legal Problems ( IF 1.529 ) Pub Date : 2016-01-01 , DOI: 10.1093/clp/cuw013
Charlie Webb

Remedial constructive trusts are held out as a way for the courts to make better decisions: freed from the strictures of rules, courts would be better positioned to do justice on the facts, tailoring a remedy to the circumstances of the case. If this were true, their rejection in English law would be a serious failing. But a closer look at the relationship between rules and discretion suggests that it’s not true and that, when discretion is in genuine opposition to rule-determined decision-making, the outcome is not more justice but less. Moreover, when we look to the arguments of those calling for remedial constructive trusts to be introduced into English law and to those jurisdictions which claim to recognize them, this much seems to be agreed. Such differences as there are go instead to the substantive rules which govern the operation of constructive trusts. So the question English law faces is not whether we should recognise some ‘new model’ of constructive trust, but rather the more familiar inquiry into what rules are best. In addressing this question, the idea of the ‘remedial’ constructive trust is only an unnecessary distraction.

中文翻译:

补救性建设性信托的神话

救济性推定信托是法院做出更好决定的一种方式:摆脱规则的束缚,法院将能够更好地根据事实伸张正义,根据案件情况制定补救措施。如果这是真的,他们在英国法律中的拒绝将是一个严重的失败。但是仔细观察规则和自由裁量权之间的关系表明它不是真的,当自由裁量权真正反对规则决定的决策时,结果不是更公正,而是更少公正。此外,当我们查看那些呼吁将补救性推定信托引入英国法律的论点以及那些声称承认它们的司法管辖区时,这似乎是一致的。存在的这种差异转而适用于管辖推定信托运作的实体规则。因此,英国法律面临的问题不是我们是否应该承认某种推定信任的“新模式”,而是对哪些规则是最好的进行更熟悉的调查。在解决这个问题时,“补救性”建设性信任的想法只是一种不必要的干扰。
更新日期:2016-01-01
down
wechat
bug