Buenaventura v Hinson - [1994] QCA 215

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1994] QCA 215
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	Appeal No. 218 of 1993
Brisbane
Before	Fitzgerald P. Pincus J.A. Davies J.A.
BETWEEN:
THERESITA BUENAVENTURA

(Plaintiff) Respondent

AND:

DOUGLAS CARLYLE HINSON

(Defendant) Appellant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 16/06/1994

This is an appeal by the defendant in a District Court action against a declaration that he holds a house property at Robina on the Gold Coast, or the proceeds of any sale thereof, in trust for himself and the plaintiff in the proportions of two-thirds to him and one-third to the plaintiff. Although in her pleading the plaintiff also claimed a beneficial interest in a house property at Mortdale, New South Wales, or the proceeds of sale thereof, that claim was not pursued. The learned trial judge made the declaration sought because he concluded that there was a common intention by the parties that both should have a proprietary interest in the house and that, in reliance on that common intention, the plaintiff acted to her detriment.

That is the way in which the case was argued both below and in this Court. See Grant v. Edwards [1986] 1 Ch.. 638; Green v. Green (1989) 17 N.S.W.L.R. 343. In her pleading the plaintiff also alleged that, during the periods of cohabitation referred to below, her income was used to pay all household and living expenses incurred by the parties, and that she provided the majority of the services associated with their day to day living and the upkeep of the two house properties. However neither allegation was proved and neither was pursued in argument.

The plaintiff and the defendant lived in a de facto relationship of husband and wife for two periods. The first of these was from about December 1980 to about July 1987 except for a period of about three months in 1986 when the plaintiff left the defendant but returned to him at his request. During this period they resided together in the Mortdale house which was owned by the defendant. The second period was from about February 1989 until about March 1990 during which they lived in the house the subject of the declaration. It was the plaintiff who terminated the relationship at the end of each of these periods.

The parties met in Manila where the plaintiff was working in the Peninsula Hotel. She was then aged 20 and the defendant was aged 45. During the course of further contact between them, including by telephone and letters, marriage was discussed and the defendant financed the plaintiff's trip to Australia. The parties then commenced to live together at Mortdale and the learned trial judge found that, although cultural and age differences, and perhaps other factors, put strains on the relationship, it might fairly be described as a stable one for approximately seven and a half years whilst they resided in that house.

During the period in which the parties resided at Mortdale both the plaintiff and the defendant were…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Buenaventura v Hinson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1994] QCA 215
Decision Date: 16/06/1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this appeal, Theresita Buenaventura sought a declaration that Douglas Carlyle Hinson holds a house property at Robina on the Gold Coast, or the proceeds of any sale thereof, in trust for himself and the plaintiff in the proportions of two-thirds to him and one-third to the plaintiff. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland by Fitzgerald P, Pincus J.A, and Davies J.A. The key legal issues were whether there was sufficient evidence of a common intention that the defendant held the house on trust for both parties, and whether there was evidence to support an inference of a common intention that the plaintiff receive an immediate one-third beneficial interest in the house. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the plaintiff acted to her detriment in reliance on any such common intention.

The Court of Appeal held that there was no sufficient evidence of the defendant's intention as submitted and found by the trial judge. The defendant's statement in a Christmas card and his answer during cross-examination were not enough to establish an intention to confer a beneficial interest in the Robina property. The Court of Appeal further noted that the plaintiff's conduct during the second period of cohabitation did not indicate reliance on an understanding of a beneficial interest in the property. The appeal was allowed, the declaration made by the trial judge was set aside, and judgment was entered for the defendant with costs of the appeal and below.

The Court of Appeal's decision hinged on the lack of clear and convincing evidence of a common intention that the defendant held the Robina property on trust for both parties, as well as the absence of evidence that the plaintiff acted to her detriment in reliance on such an intention. The Court of Appeal found that the evidence presented did not support the trial judge's conclusion, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim and the allowance of the defendant's appeal.

Orders