From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[1999] 1 WLR 1399 (PC). When a company pension fund was wound up, its contributors argued for a return of their outstanding contributions, even though they had received their expected entitlement. The argument, in a sense, was the long-standing one about what should happen to the surplus funds of an unincorporated association when it is dissolved. Because the contributors had been paid off in full, it was argued for the Crown that the surplus money was Bona vacantia.

Lord Millet stated that, although the prevailing view is that the surplus funds of an unincorporated association were not required to be returned to their contributors (e.g.,re west sussex constabulary widows fund (1971)), where there is a small number of well-defined contributors it is just to return their excess contributions.

It was suggested that the mechanism to give effect to this decision was to find that a resulting trust arose in favor of the contributors, with the association members as its trustees. Although many academics (notably Birks and Chambers) have argued for an expanded role of resulting trusts in Restitution, this view has not found favor with the House of lords in recent years (see West Deutsche V Islington 1996), and this part of the judgement may have to be regarded as out of line with prevailing authorities. However, if a resulting trust is not the right mechanism to give effect to the decision that the unincorporated association holds its surplus funds on trust for its contributors, it is not clear what else is.