The LPA1925 requires the trust on land should be created by writing document. But there are some cases where the court ruled in favour of the beneficiaries where there were no written documents regarding the trust.

It would be understandable (and fair) when the intended beneficiary has detrimental reliance on the intended trust. There is unconscionability and it is reasonable for the court to find a constructive trust (e.g. Bannister v Bannister [1948]). But if there is no detrimental reliance, it is not necessary to find a constrictive trust in favour of the intended beneficiary. If it is unconscionably for the legatee just assume the absolute title of the land, why the court does not find a constructive trust which the legatee of residual estate is the beneficiary? (Assuming that the legatee of residual estate is not the legatee of the land in question).

Things become more confusing in Rochefoucauld v Bousted [1897]. It is said that a trust on land not declared by written document is not enforceable. But the court nevertheless allowed the claim. Isn't that effectively enforced the trust? On page 127 of the textbook, the author, when commenting on this case, suggested "[s]ubsequent cases have characterised the trust as either being constructive [...] or resulting". It makes sense because these two kinds of trusts are exempted from the written document requirement under the LPA1925. But on page 134, the author suggested "[t]he preferable view is that, [...] trust of land [...] can be validly declared even thought it is not evidenced by signed writing. [...] The use of this doctrine does not mean that the trust itself is not an express trust", and citied Rochefoucauld as the authority again. It is very confusing. Whether the good law is, (a) the court would found a constructive/resulting trust when there is unconscionability, or (b) the court hold there is an express trust on land even there is no written document (and enforce this express trust)?

Sorry for posting a very long question. Thank you.