Aytul Ak-Tankiz v Ferat Ak & Ramazan Ak

The applicants, Aytul Ak-Tankiz and Ferat Ak, brought proceedings against Ramazan Ak, the respondents, in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicants sought to have a constructive trust imposed over a property in Fortitude Valley, Queensland, which was owned by Ramazan Ak. The applicants claimed that a common intention constructive trust should be imposed over the property, as well as an order for adjustment of interests in the property under s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984. The applicants argued that they had an agreement with Ramazan Ak that he would leave the property to them in his will and that this constituted a common intention constructive trust.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was sufficient evidence of an agreement between the parties that Ramazan Ak would leave the property to the applicants in his will, such that a common intention constructive trust could be imposed over the property. The court had to determine whether the applicants had made out a case for a constructive trust, and if so, whether it was appropriate to impose a common intention constructive trust or a remedial constructive trust. The court also had to consider whether an order for adjustment of interests in the property under s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 was appropriate.

The court held that there was insufficient evidence of an agreement between the parties that Ramazan Ak would leave the property to the applicants in his will. The applicants had not discharged the onus of proving such an agreement on the balance of probabilities. The court found that the applicants had not made out a case for a constructive trust, and therefore did not need to determine whether it was appropriate to impose a common intention constructive trust or a remedial constructive trust. The court also held that an order for adjustment of interests in the property under s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 was not appropriate, as the applicants had not established that they had made a significant contribution to the welfare of Ramazan Ak or the relationship between the parties. The applicants' claim was dismissed in its entirety.