Barker v Linklater

Case [2007] QCA 363

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Barker v Linklater & Anor [2007] QCA 363

PARTIES:

DOROTHY JUNE BARKER
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
ANN-MARGARET LINKLATER
(first defendant/first respondent)
KATHERINE ELIZABETH HANNA
(second defendant/second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5537 of 2007
SC No 1002 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 October 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 October 2007

JUDGES:

Jerrard and Muir JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE –QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PLEADING – DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM – where appellant claimed to be in a de facto relationship with the deceased – where appellant claimed that the respondent daughters held their interest in the property on a constructive or resulting trust for the appellant – whether the primary judge erred in reversing her ruling that allegations in the defence where deemed admissions – construction of rule 166 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules – whether retrial should be ordered

EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – CONSTITUTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF TRUSTS GENERALLY – CLASSIFICATION OF TRUSTS IN GENERAL – IMPLIED TERMS – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS- INDEPENDANT OF INTENTION – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where appellant claimed to be in a de facto relationship with the deceased – where appellant claimed that the respondent daughters held their interest in the property on a constructive or resulting trust for the appellant – whether constructive or resulting trust arose – circumstances in which constructive trust arises

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 32DA(2)
Succession Act 1981(Qld) , s 5AA, s 41
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, 165(4), r 166, r 366, r 367

Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137, applied
Bryson v Bryant (1992) 29 NSWLR 188, cited
Carpenter v Carpenter Grazing Co Ltd (1987) 5 ACLC 506, cited
Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700, applied
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1992) 177 CLR 472, cited
Dunne v Turner[1996] QCA 272; CA No 196 of 1995, 20 August 1996, applied
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118, applied
Green v Green (1989) 17 NSWLR 343, cited
Hayward v Giordani [1983] NZLR 140, cited
Popovic v Tanasijevic (No 5) [2000] 34 ACSR 1, cited
Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146, cited
Muschinski v Dodds (1984) 160 CLR 583, applied

COUNSEL:

D Kelly for the appellant
D R Murphy SC for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Biggs Fitzgerald Pike for the appellant
McCullough Robertson for the respondents

  1. JERRARD JA:  In this appeal I have read the reasons for judgment prepared by Muir JA, and agree with those and the order he proposes.  I adopt his description of the relevant events and legislation, and add my own reasons.

The Succession Act proceeding

  1. The appellant’s originating application…

Continue reading Barker v Linklater

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Barker v Linklater [2007] QCA 363
Case
[2007] QCA 363
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Barker v Linklater involved an appeal by the appellant against the respondent daughters regarding the ownership of a property. The appellant, Barker, claimed to have been in a de facto relationship with the deceased, and sought to establish that the respondent daughters held their interest in the property on a constructive or resulting trust for her. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the primary judge had initially ruled that certain allegations in the defence were deemed admissions, but later reversed this ruling. The court was required to determine whether the primary judge's reversal of this ruling was in error, and to interpret rule 166 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules in this context.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, specifically rule 166, and the application of equity principles to determine whether a constructive or resulting trust arose in favour of the appellant. The court needed to decide if the primary judge had correctly reversed her earlier ruling that certain allegations in the defence were deemed admissions, and if the primary judge's construction of rule 166 was accurate. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the evidence supported the existence of a constructive or resulting trust, independent of the parties' intentions.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the primary judge had not erred in reversing her ruling that the allegations in the defence were deemed admissions. The court held that the primary judge's interpretation of rule 166 was correct and that the evidence did not support the existence of a constructive or resulting trust in favour of the appellant. The court concluded that the primary judge's decision should be upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents. The decision underscores the importance of correctly interpreting procedural rules and the application of equity principles in determining the existence of trusts.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs

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.