Apr. 3, 4.(c) Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales. Re Rose [1952] Ch 499. N.p. Web. <https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&suppsrguid=i0ad69f8e000001648408161f5dd6478e&docguid=I8F996330E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&hitguid=I8F993C20E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&rank=15&spos=15&epos=15&td=18&crumb-action=append&context=24&resolvein=true>.
Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Vaughan [1992] 4 All ER 22. N.p. Web. <https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/uk/id/4CSP-49F0-TWP1-60B5-00000-00?context=1001073&federationidp=P48HCM59638>.
Bishopgate Investment Management Ltd v Homan [1995] 1 All ER 347. N.p. Web. <https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/uk/id/4CSP-4J90-TWP1-60R5-00000-00?context=1001073&federationidp=P48HCM59638>.
Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/f7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2uZn0itmSiIs1jxAZrwAJrxAV5wsKjIoW0ha>.
Boscawen v Bajwa [1995] 4 All ER 769. N.p. Web. <https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/uk/id/4CSP-4J80-TWP1-601G-00000-00?context=1001073&federationidp=P48HCM59638>.
‘Charities Act 2011’. Web. <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/25/contents/enacted>.
Craig Rotherham. ‘The Property Rights of Unmarried Cohabitees: The Case for Reform’. Conveyancer and Property Lawyer (2004): 268–292. Web. <https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IA73757D0E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>.
Crown copyright. Curtis v Pulbrook [2011] EWHC 167 (Ch). N.p. Web. <https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&suppsrguid=i0ad6ada700000164840a83bcfb0e859c&docguid=IB45F3170363C11E09562B961F78E26BE&hitguid=I2225BC2030BF11E080B7E3968EE9A6A3&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=3&crumb-action=append&context=50&resolvein=true>.
‘Developing the Obligation Characteristic of the Trust’. Law Quarterly Review 117 (2001): n. pag. Web. <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=ia744c0970000014d7c0c50008d93177f&docguid=ICCAEDD80E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028&hitguid=ICCAEDD80E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=1&crumb-action=append&context=8&resolvein=true>.
‘---’. Law Quarterly Review 117 (2001): n. pag. Web. <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=ia744c0970000014d7c0c50008d93177f&docguid=ICCAEDD80E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028&hitguid=ICCAEDD80E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=1&crumb-action=append&context=8&resolvein=true>.
‘Discretionary Trusts and Powers of Appointment: Progressive Assimilation’. The Canterbury law review 1992. Web. <https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/3253>.
Emery, C.T. ‘The Most Hallowed Principle: Certainty of Beneficiaries of Trusts and Powers of Appointment’. The law quarterly review 98 (1982): n. pag. Web. <https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=9e42ab19-4e99-e711-80cb-005056af4099>.
‘Explaining the Trust’. The law quarterly review 131 (2015): n. pag. Print.
Feb. 12, 13, 14, 15; March 29(c) Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales. Lloyds Bank Ltd v Rosset [1991] AC 107. N.p. Web. <https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&suppsrguid=i0ad69f8e000001685be02319fb1ea9e0&docguid=IE21B2C20E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&hitguid=IE21B0510E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=2&crumb-action=append&context=145&resolvein=true>.
Feb. 20.1941 Nov. 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24.(c) Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales. Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1942] 1 All ER 378. N.p. Web. <https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&suppsrguid=i0ad62903000001685c23b2651cbe6fc9&docguid=I853552A0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&hitguid=I85352B90E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=1&crumb-action=append&context=17&resolvein=true>.
FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45, [2014] 3 WLR 535. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/e7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIoXadn2mdo1KdlIOuDYL2CKL2y0L2BULezIOdm9baa>.
Foskett v McKeown [1997] 3 All ER 392 (CA). N.p. Web. <https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/uk/id/4CSP-4J80-TWP1-60JM-00000-00?context=1001073&federationidp=P48HCM59638>.
Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102 (HL). N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo3GJn2WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF/foskett-v-mckeown>.
Gardner, Simon. An Introduction to the Law of Trusts. 3rd ed. Clarendon law series. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Web. <https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=845987>.
---. An Introduction to the Law of Trusts. 3rd ed. Clarendon law series. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.
---. An Introduction to the Law of Trusts. 3rd ed. Clarendon law series. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.
---. An Introduction to the Law of Trusts. 3rd ed. Clarendon law series. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.
Gravells, Nigel P. ‘Public Purpose Trusts’. Modern Law Review 40 (1977): n. pag. Web. <http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/modlr40&div=40&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab>.
Green, B. ‘Grey, Oughtred and Vandervell - A Contextual Reappraisal’. Modern Law Review (1984): n. pag. Web. <http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/modlr47&id=405>.
Hayton, David. ‘Chapter 1, Equity’s Identification Rules’. Laundering and Tracing. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. 1–21. Web. <https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=730137f3-f691-e611-80c7-005056af4099>.
Hodge, David. ‘Secret Trusts: The Fraud Theory Revisited’. The Conveyancer and property lawyer 44.1 (1980): 341–350. Web. <https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=55e0443c-9aa3-e711-80cb-005056af4099>.
John Mee. ‘Jones v Kernott: Inferring and Imputing in Essex’. Conveyancer and Property Lawyer (2012): 167–180. Web. <https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I16D6DF4187B011E1BF2ED535FDE7B006/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>.
Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2GdnZuto0WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF>.
March 21, 22, 23; June 14(c) Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales. Bank of Credit and Commerce International V Akindele [2001] Ch 437. N.p. Web. <https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&suppsrguid=i0ad6ada7000001685c2b9675e60a8ad6&docguid=I6EBA6DE0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&hitguid=I6EBA46D0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&rank=7&spos=7&epos=7&td=8&crumb-action=append&context=51&resolvein=true>.
Marr (Appellant) v Collie (Respondent) (Bahamas). N.p. Web. <http://www.justcite.com/Document/e7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIoXeJmZGdo2qdlIOuDYL2CKL2y0L2BULezIOdm9baa/marr-appellant-v-collie-respondent-bahamas>.
Martin Dixon. ‘Editor’s Notebook: The Still Not Ended, Never-Ending Story’. Conveyancer and Property Lawyer (2012): 83–86. Web. <https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I16D57FB087B011E1BF2ED535FDE7B006/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>.
Martin George*. ‘Presuming Too Little about Resulting and Constructive Trusts? Marr v Collie [2017] UKPC 17’. The Conveyancer and Property Lawyer (2017): 303–312. Web. <https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IC23552707E7411E7AA22E07DFD66C964/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>.
Mascall v Mascall (1985) 50 P. & C.R. 119. N.p. Web. <https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&suppsrguid=i0ad69f8e000001648409510b5dd64796&docguid=IEF8836F0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&hitguid=IEF880FE0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=14&crumb-action=append&context=36&resolvein=true>.
McPhail v Doulton [1971] AC 424. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/f7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2utn1aZnSiIs1jxAZrwAJrxAV5wsKjIoW0ha>.
Murad v Al-Saraj [2005] EWCA Civ 959. N.p. Web. <https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&suppsrguid=i0ad6ada7000001685c255a59b922c4e7&docguid=I096CC900E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&hitguid=I096CA1F0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&rank=2&spos=2&epos=2&td=3&crumb-action=append&context=25&resolvein=true>.
Nelson v Greening & Sykes [2007] EWCA Civ 1358. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIoZeJnXeJmZWIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF>.
Nicholls, Lord. ‘Chapter 15, Knowing Receipt: The Need for a New Landmark, from: Restitution : Past, Present and Future : Essays in Honour of Gareth Jones’. Restitution: Past, Present and Future : Essays in Honour of Gareth Jones. Oxford: Hart, 1998. 231–246. Web. <http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nottingham/detail.action?docID=1772785>.
Parkinson, Patrick. ‘Reconceptualising the Express Trust’. Cambridge Law Journal 61.3 (2002): n. pag. Web. <https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0008197302001769>.
Pearce, Robert A., and Warren Barr. Pearce & Stevens’ Trusts and Equitable Obligations. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Print.
---. Pearce & Stevens’ Trusts and Equitable Obligations. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Print.
---. Pearce & Stevens’ Trusts and Equitable Obligations. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Print.
---. Pearce & Stevens’ Trusts and Equitable Obligations. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Print.
---. Pearce & Stevens’ Trusts and Equitable Obligations. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Print.
---. Pearce & Stevens’ Trusts and Equitable Obligations. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Print.
---. Pearce & Stevens’ Trusts and Equitable Obligations. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Print.
---. Pearce & Stevens’ Trusts and Equitable Obligations. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Print.
---. Pearce & Stevens’ Trusts and Equitable Obligations. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Print.
---. Pearce & Stevens’ Trusts and Equitable Obligations. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Print.
---. Pearce & Stevens’ Trusts and Equitable Obligations. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Print.
---. Pearce & Stevens’ Trusts and Equitable Obligations. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Print.
Penner, J. E., and Jeremiah Lau. The Law of Trusts. Eleventh edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Print.
---. The Law of Trusts. Eleventh edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Print.
---. The Law of Trusts. Eleventh edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Print.
---. The Law of Trusts. Eleventh edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Print.
---. The Law of Trusts. Eleventh edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Print.
---. The Law of Trusts. Eleventh edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Print.
---. The Law of Trusts. Eleventh edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Print.
---. The Law of Trusts. Eleventh edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Print.
---. The Law of Trusts. Eleventh edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Print.
---. The Law of Trusts. Eleventh edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Print.
---. The Law of Trusts. Eleventh edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Print.
Pennington v Waine [2002] 1 WLR 2075. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/f7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2qdn0itnSiIs1jxAZrwAJrxAV5wsKjIoW0ha>.
Re Baden (No 2) [1973] 1 Ch 9. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/f7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2udnZqJmSiIs1jxAZrwAJrxAV5wsKjIoW0ha/badens-deed-trusts-no-2-in-re>.
Re Denley’s Trust Deed [1969] 1 Ch 373. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/f7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2ydo2adnSiIs1jxAZrwAJrxAV5wsKjIoW0ha>.
Re Lipinski [1976] Ch 235. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/f7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2uJm4utmSiIs1jxAZrwAJrxAV5wsKjIoW0ha>.
Re Vandervell (No 2) [1967] 2 AC 291. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo4ytm3Cdm3WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF/vandervell-v-commissioners-of-inland-revenue>.
‘Reconceptualising the Express Trust’. Cambridge Law Journal 61.3 (2002): n. pag. Web.
Roche, Juanita. ‘RETURNING TO CLARITY AND PRINCIPLE: THE PRIVY COUNCIL ON STACK v DOWDEN’. The Cambridge Law Journal 76.3 (2017): 493–496. Web.
Rotherham, Craig. ‘Chapter 6, Tracing and Justice in Bankruptcy’. Restitution and Insolvency. London: Mansfield Press, 2000. 113–133. Web. <https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=4e6a61b4-ec1d-e611-80bd-0cc47a6bddeb>.
Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan [1995] 2 AC 378. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/e7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIoXitn1qdlIOuDYL2CKL2y0L2BULezIOdm9baa>.
‘Sharing Homes | Law Commission’. N.p., n.d. Web. <https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/sharing-homes/#sharing-homes>.
SIMON GARDNER.*. ‘Knowing Assistance and Knowing Receipt: Taking Stock’. Law Quarterly Review (1996): 56–94. Web. <https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/ICCE41E51E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>.
---. ‘Rethinking Family Property’. Law Quarterly Review (1993): 263–300. Web. <https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/ICD0DED70E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>.
Smith, Lionel D. ‘Tracing into the Payment of a Debt’. The Cambridge Law Journal 54.02 (1995): n. pag. Web.
Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, [2007] 2 AC 432. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/f7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2mZn0itnSiIs1jxAZrwAJrxAV5wsKjIoW0ha/stack-v-dowden>.
Target Holdings v Redferns [1996] AC 421. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo5qJn0GdnZWIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF/target-holdings-ltd-v-redferns-hl>.
The Federal Republic of Brazil and Another (Respondents) v Durant International Corporation and Another (Appellants) (Jersey). N.p. Web. <http://www.justcite.com/Document/e7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIoXaJn1GJnZadlIOuDYL2CKL2y0L2BULezIOdm9baa/the-federal-republic-of-brazil-and-another-respondents-v-durant>.
Thomas, S. B. ‘“Goodbye” Knowing Receipt. “Hello” Unconscientious Receipt’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 21.2 (2001): 239–265. Web.
Vandervell v IRC [1967] 2 AC 291. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/f7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2uJn5KJnSiIs1jxAZrwAJrxAV5wsKjIoW0ha>.
