The appellant used funds advanced by the respondent to purchase property in his own name.
The respondent claimed a beneficial interest via purchase money resulting trust.
The Supreme Court declined to abandon the purchase money resulting trust doctrine in favour of unjust enrichment, holding that the doctrine provides certainty and predictability.
The Court found the trial judge correctly concluded the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted, as the respondent's contribution matched the exact amount of tax arrears it owed to a third party, and the respondent's own fax stated the funds were advanced without conditions or requirements.
