ANDERSON -v- McPHERSON [No 2] [2012] WASC 19
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASC 19 | |
| Case No: | CIV:2210/2007 | 3-6 OCTOBER & 24 NOVEMBER 2011 | |
| Coram: | EDELMAN J | 25/01/12 | |
| 55 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Presumption of resulting trust rebutted Declarations of plaintiffs' contractual entitlement made First defendant's counterclaims dismissed First defendant's claim for contribution and indemnity dismissed Consequential relief to be the subject of further submissions | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BRUCE WILLIAM ANDERSON CAROLYN ANDERSON STEPHANNIE MARRIEE McPHERSON TROY KENNON ANDERSON |
Catchwords: | Trusts Resulting trusts 'Presumption of resulting trust' Fact which is 'presumed' in a presumption of resulting trust Fact which must be rebutted Whether first defendant has rebutted the 'presumption of resulting trust' Trusts Resulting trusts 'Presumption of advancement' Meaning of presumption of advancement Whether presumption of advancement requires the assumption of an obligation to provide or support Relationships to which the presumption of advancement applies Whether presumption of advancement applies to a daughter-in-law in a relationship with parents in law in loco parentis (in place of parents) Whether such a relationship existed Declarations Declaration as to contractual entitlement under agreement Form of declaration should not extend beyond the contractual right Restitution Failure of consideration Meaning of 'consideration' Objective basis or condition for payments by first defendant Requirement that restitutionary relief cannot be inconsistent with contractual rights Lack of evidentiary foundation for the restitution award sought Restitution Undue influence Requirements of undue influence Whether first defendant was subject to the dominance and ascendancy of the first plaintiff Lack of evidentiary foundation for the restitution award sought Restitution Unconscionable dealing Meaning of 'unconscionable' dealing Whether the first defendant had a special disadvantage or weakness Whether the first or second plaintiff exploited any special disadvantage or weakness Lack of evidentiary foundation for restitution award sought |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Air Jamaica Ltd v Charlton [1999] 1 WLR 1399 Allcard v Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145 Attorney-General of New South Wales v World Best Holdings Limited [2005] NSWCA 261; (2005) 63 NSWLR 557 Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 18; (2003) 214 CLR 51 Bank of Credit & Commerce International SA v Aboody [1990] 1 QB 923 Beecher v Major (1865) 2 Drew & Sm 431; (1865) 62 ER 684 Bennet v Bennet (1879) 10 Ch D 474 Black Uhlans Inc v New South Wales Crime Commission [2002] NSWSC 1060 Blomley v Ryan [1956] HCA 81; (1956) 99 CLR 362 Bridgeman v Green (1755) Wilm 58; (1755) 97 ER 22 Bridgewater v Leahy [1998] HCA 66; (1998) 194 CLR 457 Brown v Brown (1993) 31 NSWLR 582 Brown v The NSW Trustee & Guardian [2011] NSWSC 1203 Byrnes v Kendle [2011] HCA 26; (2011) 243 CLR 253 Calverley v Green [1984] HCA 81; (1984) 155 CLR 242 Campbells Cash & Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif Ltd [2006] HCA 41; (2006) 229 CLR 386 Charles Marshall Pty… |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Anderson v McPherson (No 2) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2012] WASC 19
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Anderson v McPherson (No 2), the plaintiffs, David and Margaret Anderson, sought declarations regarding the ownership of property and sought restitution from the defendants, Andrew McPherson and his wife Jane McPherson, for funds paid for the benefit of the property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issues involved the presumptions of resulting trust and advancement, the nature of restitution, and the application of undue influence and unconscionable dealing.
The court addressed whether the first defendant had successfully rebutted the presumption of a resulting trust and whether the presumption of advancement applied to the relationship between the plaintiffs and the first defendant. The court concluded that the first defendant had indeed rebutted the presumption of a resulting trust by demonstrating an intention to benefit the plaintiffs directly. Regarding the presumption of advancement, the court determined that it did not require an assumption of an obligation to support or provide but rather applied to certain familial relationships, including those in loco parentis. The court found that such a relationship existed between the plaintiffs and the first defendant.
The court also examined the plaintiffs' claim for restitution, focusing on the basis of failure of consideration, undue influence, and unconscionable dealing. The court held that the plaintiffs' request for restitution extended beyond their contractual rights, lacked objective evidentiary support, and was inconsistent with the contractual obligations. Additionally, the court dismissed the claim of undue influence and unconscionable dealing due to insufficient evidence.
The court made several orders, including a declaration of the plaintiffs' contractual entitlement, dismissal of the first defendant's counterclaims, and dismissal of the first defendant's claim for contribution and indemnity. The court directed the parties to make further submissions on consequential relief.
The court addressed whether the first defendant had successfully rebutted the presumption of a resulting trust and whether the presumption of advancement applied to the relationship between the plaintiffs and the first defendant. The court concluded that the first defendant had indeed rebutted the presumption of a resulting trust by demonstrating an intention to benefit the plaintiffs directly. Regarding the presumption of advancement, the court determined that it did not require an assumption of an obligation to support or provide but rather applied to certain familial relationships, including those in loco parentis. The court found that such a relationship existed between the plaintiffs and the first defendant.
The court also examined the plaintiffs' claim for restitution, focusing on the basis of failure of consideration, undue influence, and unconscionable dealing. The court held that the plaintiffs' request for restitution extended beyond their contractual rights, lacked objective evidentiary support, and was inconsistent with the contractual obligations. Additionally, the court dismissed the claim of undue influence and unconscionable dealing due to insufficient evidence.
The court made several orders, including a declaration of the plaintiffs' contractual entitlement, dismissal of the first defendant's counterclaims, and dismissal of the first defendant's claim for contribution and indemnity. The court directed the parties to make further submissions on consequential relief.
Orders
Orders of the court
Presumption of resulting trust rebutted
Declarations of plaintiffs' contractual entitlement made
First defendant's counterclaims dismissed
First defendant's claim for contribution and indemnity dismissed
Consequential relief to be the subject of further submissions
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.