Ardestani v Doss

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.