1. Loans
   1. Barclay's Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments
      1. Money loaned to pay dividends
      2. Was it a loan for a specific purpose or a trust?
         1. Must not be at free disposal of lendee
      3. Held to be a two tier trust
         1. RR held on trust to pay dividends and if not paid, on trust for quistclose
   2. Certainty of intention of trust
      1. Issue?
         1. Doesn't need to use word trust
            1. Paul v Constance
   3. Beneficiary Principle
      1. Issue?
         1. Held in Twinsectra v Yardley that Quistclose was the beneficiary in the primary trust
   4. Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley
      1. Money loaned to buy property, but used for other purposes
      2. Solicitor held loan on trust for lender
      3. Held to be a Quistclose trust
   5. Carrears Rothman Ltd v Freeman Matthews Treasure Ltd
      1. Was a quistclose trust
      2. Were never free to deal with money as they pleased
      3. Was ring-fenced for a purpose
   6. Re EVTR
      1. Not essential to be paid into a separate account
      2. Main priority is sole, exclusive possesion
2. Supply of goods on credit
   1. S18 SGA 1979
      1. In business to business contracts
      2. Ownership of goods passed to buyer (including title)
      3. Even if not yet paid for
      4. Issue
         1. Seller lacks proprietary interest
         2. If buyer becomes insolvent- will be ordinary creditor
      5. Solution
         1. S19 SGA 1979
         2. Allows sellers and buyers to stipulate when title to goods passes
         3. Can retain a proprietary interest and recliam goods upon insolvency
         4. Retention of title clause
   2. Romalpa Aluminium Ltd
      1. A sold foil to B. Had proceeds of sale and a retentio clause
      2. Wanted to claim proceeds of sale of foil on insolvency
      3. Fiduciary relationship held
         1. acting as agent
         2. Equitable tracing could be used
   3. Borden (UK) Ltd v Scottish Timber Products
      1. Goods were mixed
      2. Had freedom to use goods as they saw fit
      3. Fiduciary relationship not found.
3. Customer pre-payments
   1. Is possible to create a trust of money when customer pre-pays for goods
   2. Requirements
      1. Certainty of intention
         1. Re Kayford
            1. Courts are prepared to infer a trust
            2. Separating into a sepearate account is good evidence but not conclusive
            3. Decisive factor was believing that trust was best way to protect customer's money
            4. Whole purpose was to ensure money remainder inbeneficiary's ownership
      2. Certainty of subject matter
         1. Re Goldcorp Exchange
            1. Hadn't validly declared trust as there was uncertainty
            2. Failed to segregate property (the bullion)
            3. Also good evidence of intention
            4. Similar to Re London Wine Company
         2. Hunter v Moss
            1. Failed to segregate property (the shares)
            2. But were intangible and indistinguishable so still valid
      3. Certainty of object
         1. OT v Computers v First National Tricity Finance
            1. Two accounts set up. 1 for customers- valid
            2. Second was for 'urgent suppliers'
            3. Void and failed certainty of objects
         2. Test
            1. Complete List Test
            2. Must be possible to draw up a complete list of every beneficiary of the trust
            3. Broadway Cottage v IRC
      4. Beneficiary Principle
         1. Will satisfy usually
         2. Is the customer
      5. Formalities
         1. Trusts over personalty require no formalities
            1. Can be oral
      6. Must be no preference
         1. S239 Insolvency Act 1986
            1. occurs when a company does (or doesn't) do something which puts one of its creditors in a better position upon insolvency than they would have been otherwise
            2. Applies if occurs within 6 months
            3. Or 2 years if creditor connected to company
            4. And company influenced by desire to put creditor in better position
            5. Effect
            6. Court order to put parties in same position they would have been if no preference
         2. Re Kayford
            1. Declaration of trust won't put creditors in a better position on insolvency
            2. Won't even become creditors in first place.
            3. Are instead beneficiaries