In this context, I accept the plaintiff's submission that because the Tribunal had expressly declined to make any finding as to the beneficial ownership of the Land after the 2006 transfer, there was simply no factual foundation for this conclusion. Moreover, the conclusion involved a legal error, in that it was based on an erroneous assumption that the 2006 transfer would have given rise to a "resulting 'mistaken' trust" in favour of Peter and Garry White, as opposed to a constructive trust for Annacott on the same terms. In my view, the plaintiff took title to the Land subject to the existing trust for Annacott and Annacott was able to enforce the beneficial interest under that trust against the plaintiff. There was no basis for a finding that there were two "different trusts". The other aspect of these findings is they appear to overlook and have no regard to the position that on the evidence there is nothing to suggest that Annacott has ever agreed to any surrender or variation of its beneficial entitlement to the Land as it originally arose. More particularly, there is no evidence of Annacott ever passing any resolution to give up, transfer or vary its beneficial interest in the Land. It follows that unless there were some power in the trustees to vary the trust created in favour of Annacott, it matters not what the trustees of that trust do or think they are doing in relation to the legal estate, short of a dealing with a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, which title would defeat Annacott's equitable title. No such power of variation was found by the Tribunal and none is suggested now. Moreover, no resolution of, declaration or dealing by the plaintiff could, of itself, affect the trusts upon which the Land is held.[148] Illustrating the point in more general terms, it simply could not follow that, for example, the transfer of Blackacre from trustee A, who holds the legal title on a bare trust for the beneficial owner of that land, to trustee B, who is also the trustee of a discretionary trust, would result in the trusts with respect to Blackacre being varied so that its beneficial ownership and the terms of that ownership became regulated by the provisions of the discretionary trust. In any event, no new trust is created however "mistaken" the trustees are in their dealings or arrangements - in equity trustee B simply holds Blackacre on a bare trust for the same beneficiary and on the same terms as they subsisted prior to the transfer. The position may change with the agreement of the beneficiary of Blackacre, and depending on the nature of that agreement, but that is not the position in the present circumstances.