18, 19, 20, 22 February 2019, 17 May 2019 (last submissions received 14 June 2019)
JUDGE:
Long SC DCJ
ORDER:
The defendants pay the plaintiff the sum of $7,757.73.1.
The defendants pay the plaintiff the sum of $209,475.84.2.
The parties are to make written submissions as to costs, such submissions not to exceed three (3) pages in length:3.
in the case of the plaintiff, by filing and serving such submissions on or before 11 September 2020; and(a)
in the case of the defendants, by filing and serving such submissions on or before 19 September 2020.(b)
177,521.90 and in the remainder beneficially for themselves.It is declared that the defendants hold their interests in the property described as Lot 8, SP 265513, Title Reference 51027121, located at 56 Kentish Road, Kiels Mountain on trust for the plaintiff beneficially as to the sum of $4.
The parties are granted liberty to apply.5.
CATCHWORDS:
EQUITY – RESTITUTION – UNJUST ENRICHMENT – Where the plaintiff organised and paid for refurbishment costs to real property owned by the second defendant – Whether the refurbishments were carried out with the defendants’ knowledge, authority and agreement – Whether the refurbishments conferred a quantified benefit to the defendants
EQUITY – RESULTING TRUST – PRESUMPTION OF ADVANCEMENT – REBUTTING THE PRESUMPTION OF ADVANCEMENT – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST – Where the plaintiff advanced monies to her son and daughter-in-law (the defendants) for the purchase of real property – Whether the payments were a voluntary gift – Alternatively, whether the payments were advanced to further a joint endeavour involving mutual benefit – Whether there was a failure of a joint endeavour – Whether there is attributable blame – Whether there was a common intention of the parties as to sharing beneficial interest – Whether the defendants retention of the entire beneficial interest in the real property is unconscionable – Whether the plaintiff is estopped from claiming an interest in the real property
EQUITABLE REMEDIES – Where no valuation evidence was adduced – Addressing the unconscionability of the defendants’ position – Whether to grant relief by way a declaration of constructive trust – Whether to grant relief by way of the appointment of statutory trustees for sale
[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 Buchan v Young
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Buchan v Young [2020] QDC 216
Case
[2020] QDC 216
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Buchan v Young, the plaintiff, Buchan, sought restitutionary relief from the defendants, Young and her son, who were the registered proprietors of a property. Buchan had paid for the refurbishment of the property under a mistaken belief that she had a beneficial interest in it. The defendants denied that Buchan had any beneficial interest. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
The legal issues involved the principles of unjust enrichment and the existence of a resulting trust or constructive trust over the property. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether Buchan's payments for the refurbishments and the purchase of the property constituted a voluntary gift, a joint endeavour, or an advancement that created a resulting trust. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the defendants' retention of the entire beneficial interest was unconscionable, and if so, whether Buchan was estopped from claiming an interest in the property.
The court found that Buchan had organised and paid for the refurbishments with the defendants’ knowledge and agreement, and that these refurbishments had conferred a benefit to the defendants. The court also concluded that the payments made by Buchan for the purchase of the property were not a voluntary gift but rather an advancement intended to further a joint endeavour. The court determined that there had been a failure of the joint endeavour and that it was unconscionable for the defendants to retain the entire beneficial interest in the property. The court further held that Buchan was not estopped from claiming an interest in the property. Based on these findings, the court ordered that the defendants hold their interests in the property on trust for Buchan to the extent of her contributions.
The court ordered the defendants to pay Buchan specific sums, declared that the defendants hold their interests in the property on trust for Buchan to the extent of her contributions, and granted the parties liberty to apply regarding costs. The plaintiff and defendants were required to file and serve written submissions on costs within specified timeframes.
Orders
Orders of the court
The defendants pay the plaintiff the sum of $7,757.73.1.
The defendants pay the plaintiff the sum of $209,475.84.2.
The parties are to make written submissions as to costs, such submissions not to exceed three (3) pages in length:3.
in the case of the plaintiff, by filing and serving such submissions on or before 11 September 2020; and(a)
in the case of the defendants, by filing and serving such submissions on or before 19 September 2020.(b)
177,521.90 and in the remainder beneficially for themselves.It is declared that the defendants hold their interests in the property described as Lot 8, SP 265513, Title Reference 51027121, located at 56 Kentish Road, Kiels Mountain on trust for the plaintiff beneficially as to the sum of $4.