## Facts

- Northern Developments Ltd received funds designated for specific property development projects, not for general business use.
- Both the lender and the company, via written and oral communication, agreed that the funds would be segregated and used exclusively for those projects.
- No formal trust deed or security was created, but correspondence and banking arrangements indicated an intent to keep the funds in a dedicated account.
- Northern Developments Ltd entered insolvent liquidation before the completion of the relevant projects.
- The liquidator included the funds as company assets for distribution to unsecured creditors.
- The lender argued that a Quistclose-type trust existed, so that, upon failure of the specified purpose, beneficial ownership of the funds reverted to the lender.
- The decision in this case remains unreported and is mainly referenced in later discussions on Quistclose trust principles.

## Issues

1. Can a Quistclose trust arise from financial contributions made for a defined purpose beyond conventional loans?
2. Is a trust inferred from mutual intention and specific purpose in correspondence despite lacking a formal trust instrument?
3. Does beneficial ownership in the funds revert to the lender upon insolvency and failure of the stated purpose, excluding the funds from the insolvent estate?
4. What is the evidential standard for inferring a trust where formal documentation is lacking or ambiguous?

## Decision

- The court accepted that Quistclose trust principles are not confined to conventional loan arrangements and may apply to any funds advanced for a specifically agreed purpose.
- The absence of a formal trust deed was not determinative; mutual intention, evidenced by a dedicated account and supporting correspondence, was sufficient to infer a trust.
- The court found two trusts: a primary trust to apply the funds for the specified purpose, and a secondary trust for the lender if the purpose failed.
- Because the purpose failed before project completion, beneficial ownership in the funds reverted to the lender, requiring the liquidator to repay the unused balance to the lender rather than distribute it to creditors.
- The court focused on the substance of the transaction and the actual treatment of the funds over the lack of formal documents.

## Legal Principles

- A Quistclose trust is a resulting trust, comprising a primary trust for the stated purpose and a secondary trust for the lender upon failure of that purpose.
- This doctrine protects the lender’s proprietary interest against general creditors and sometimes against the borrower's bank.
- Requirements for a Quistclose trust include a clear and defined purpose, mutual intention to exclude the funds from general company assets, and failure of the purpose before full application.
- Courts may infer the existence of such trusts from arrangements like segregated accounts and supporting correspondence, even without explicit trust language.
- Where a Quistclose trust exists, relevant funds are not part of the borrower’s beneficial estate and are excluded from insolvency distributions.
- Recognising purpose trusts can improve commercial certainty, but incomplete documentation still presents risks.

## Conclusion

This case affirms that funds advanced for a specific, mutually agreed purpose may be subject to a Quistclose trust even if a formal loan or trust structure is absent, allowing lenders to reclaim unspent funds upon insolvency where mutual intent and purpose are shown.


Re Northern Developments Ltd (1978) Unreported