Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340

Facts

  • Ms. Tinsley and Ms. Milligan, in a cohabiting relationship, jointly purchased a property registered solely in Ms. Tinsley’s name.
  • The arrangement was made to enable Ms. Milligan to fraudulently claim social security benefits, of which Ms. Tinsley was aware.
  • Both contributed financially to the purchase and ran a lodging business from the property.
  • The relationship deteriorated, leading Ms. Tinsley to seek to evict Ms. Milligan, who counterclaimed for a half share.
  • The key factual dispute was whether Ms. Milligan could assert a beneficial interest under a resulting trust despite the association of the acquisition with an unlawful act.
  • Ms. Tinsley argued that Ms. Milligan should not acquire a beneficial interest because doing so would require reliance on her illegal purpose.

Issues

  1. Whether a party to an illegal transaction can claim a beneficial interest in property under a resulting trust without relying on their own illegality.
  2. Whether the reliance principle or a broader public policy approach should govern the application of the illegality defense in trust claims.

Decision

  • The House of Lords found that Ms. Milligan could claim a beneficial interest in the property without having to rely on the illegality, as her beneficial interest arose from her direct financial contribution.
  • The court applied the reliance principle, holding that a claimant is barred only if their claim requires reliance on an illegal act.
  • The strict reliance test was preferred over the discretionary public policy test proposed by the Court of Appeal.
  • Ms. Milligan’s claim succeeded because the establishment of the resulting trust did not depend on her illegal conduct.

Legal Principles

  • A claimant will be barred from recovery only if their cause of action requires reliance on their unlawful act (reliance principle).
  • A resulting trust can arise if a party proves financial contribution to the purchase price, regardless of an unlawful motive, provided the claim does not rest on the illegality.
  • The House of Lords rejected a discretionary public policy test in favor of clear legal rules controlling the illegality defense.
  • The reliance principle, as established in this case, contrasts with the later proportionality and public policy approach adopted in Patel v Mirza and subsequent cases.

Conclusion

Tinsley v Milligan established that a beneficial interest under a resulting trust may be claimed if the claimant does not need to rely on their illegal conduct. The strict reliance principle adopted in this case became foundational for how courts addressed illegality in trusts, though this approach has since been reconsidered and replaced by a broader public policy test in later case law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal