you) and so appears to be automatic." ( per Megarry J, Re Vandervell's Trusts (No 2)) [1974] Automatic resulting trusts can arise when the settlor tries to set up a trust for a third party, but there is an initial failure for want of objects; for example, by naming beneficiaries which cannot be defined, as in Morice v Bishop of Durham, or when the objectives of the trust no longer become possible or relevant by the time of the transfer to the trustee, as in Re Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund [1958] Ch 300. Some academics commentators suggested that the automatic resulting trust will arise 'only where the property has been transferred to a trustee on an express trust so that the trustee has legal title to the property that can then be held on trust for the settlor'. However, it is uncertain whether this category of resulting trust can be explained by the presumption of an intention to declare a trust. The rationale for the recognition of the automatic resulting trusts where an express trust has failed remains controversial, Quistclose trust in particular. (Twinsectra v yardley [2002] ) Settlor's intention in automatic resulting trusts In relation to automatic resulting trusts, there is some difference in expressing the nature of the settlor's intention: In Westdeutsche Lord Browne-Wilkinson stated that a resulting trust arises due to a legal "presumed intention to create a trust in favour of the settlor" It has also been suggested that it is the fact of a "lack of intention to benefit the recipient" that creates the trust. This could be referred to as the Chambers Model of intention.The settlor intends to retain the beneficial interest in the property, but transfers the legal title to someone else (for example, to let an active child manage the assets). The trust is implied by the settlor's lack of intention to transfer any beneficial interest Although in most cases the outcome would be the same, it is highly significant to differentiate between a positive intention to retain beneficial interest, and a lack of intention to benefit the transferee.. It is often difficult to prove intention, but easier to prove the circumstances when a legal presumption will arise. It may be more or less easy to rebut a presumption than to disprove an intention. Lord Browne-Wilkinson was afraid that this would create a "floodgates" problem, by giving every claimant a proprietary right