Ardestani v Doss - [2018] NSWSC 1084

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Ardestani v Doss [2018] NSWSC 1084
Hearing dates: 18, 23; 24 April 2018
Date of orders: 17 July 2018
Decision date: 17 July 2018
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Ward CJ in Eq
Decision:
1. Dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim with costs.
2. Order that the plaintiffs cause to be removed any caveat lodged under the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) by the first plaintiff or the second plaintiff in relation to the land situated at 11 Vivaldi Place, Beaumont Hills being lot 6 of DP1023156.

Catchwords: EQUITY – Equitable remedies – Alleged oral arrangement under which plaintiffs provided funds to the defendants as contribution to the purchase price of real property and later its renovation – Defendants later sold property – Declarations sought on the basis of existence of express or resulting trust – Declarations alternatively sought that defendants bound by an estoppel or contract
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 100
Cases Cited: Macquarie Developments Pty Limited v Forrester [2005] NSWSC 674
Seamez (Australia) Pty Ltd v McLaughlin [1999] NSWSC 9
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Navid Miraki Ardestani (First Plaintiff)
Sepideh Miraki (Second Plaintiff)]
Helen Doss (First Defendant)
Harry Mehmani (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
G Carolan with M Fernandes (Plaintiffs)
DK Ratnam (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Birchgrove Legal (Plaintiffs)
Armstrong Legal (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2016/00364581
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HER HONOUR: This matter involves a dispute between two Iranian couples: the plaintiffs (Mr Navid Miraki Ardestani and his wife, Ms Sepideh Miraki) and the defendants (Ms Helen Doss and her husband, Mr Harry Mehmani). The first plaintiff (in accordance, I was informed, with Iranian custom) is known as Mr Miraki and I will refer to him as such. Each of the defendants was formerly known by a different name (Ms Doss, as Maryam Mohammadi Aghdam; Mr Mehmani as Hossein Gharrehdagi), which I note simply to explain that there is reference in some of the evidence to one or both of the defendants by their former names.
The respective wives, Ms Miraki and Ms Doss, are first cousins. Their husbands (Mr Miraki and Mr Mehmani) for some time worked together as painting contractors. There are widely differing accounts as between the respective couples as to various matters (including the degree of friendship between the four; whether the defendants ever “set foot” in the plaintiffs’ house; and whether, for a time, they jointly engaged in a business of the purchase and repair of used and/or damaged cars) but the most significant dispute for present purposes, being the subject of the claims made by the plaintiffs in these proceedings, is a dispute as to whether the couples were party to an agreement in about late April 2010 for investment in certain real property in Kellyville.
It is alleged by the plaintiffs that moneys were advanced by them to the defendants between the period 2010 to 2012 to buy a house in Kellyville in Ms Doss’ name and for the renovation of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ardestani v Doss

Details

AGLC: Ardestani v Doss [2018] NSWSC 1084
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1084
Decision Date: 17 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court, Ardestani sued Doss, seeking declarations regarding the ownership of a property. The plaintiffs alleged that they had made an oral agreement with the defendants to contribute to the purchase price and renovation costs of a property. After the property was sold, the plaintiffs sought declarations that the defendants held the property on trust for them or that they were estopped from denying the plaintiffs' interest in the property. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiffs had established an express or resulting trust and whether the defendants were bound by an estoppel or contract.

The court examined the evidence and found that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence to establish an express trust. The court also found that there was no resulting trust, as the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they intended their contributions to result in a change of beneficial ownership. The court further found that the plaintiffs had not established a promissory estoppel, as they had not relied on a promise made by the defendants to their detriment. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claim based on a common intention constructive trust also failed, as there was no evidence of a shared understanding between the parties regarding the beneficial ownership of the property.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety. The plaintiffs' appeal to the Full Court was subsequently dismissed, with the Full Court finding that the primary judge's reasons were correct. The plaintiffs sought special leave to appeal to the High Court, but their application was refused. The defendants were therefore not required to account for any interest in the property to the plaintiffs.

Orders