Legal Research
Cases
Buffrey v Buffrey

Buffrey v Buffrey

Case [2006] NSWSC 1349 6 December 2006

Resulting Trusts

Presumption of Advancement

Unjust Enrichment

Equitable Estoppel

Trusts & Equity

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Buffrey v Buffrey & Anor [2006] NSWSC 1349
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 1 December 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
6 December 2006

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Palmer J

DECISION: Declaration and order as sought in Statement of Claim.

CATCHWORDS: RESULTING TRUSTS – PRESUMPTION OF ADVANCEMENT – Competition between presumptions – principles summarised – whether facts rebutted presumption of resulting trust – whether facts rebutted presumption of advancement.

CASES CITED: - Brown v Brown (1993) 31 NSWLR 582
- Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242
- Cummins (a bankrupt), Trustees of the Property of, v Cummins (2006) 80 ALJR 589
- Currie v Hamilton [1984] 1 NSWLR 687
- Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886
- Charles Marshall Pty Ltd v Grimsley (1956) 95 CLR 353
- Martin v Martin (1959) 110 CLR 297
- Neilson v Letch (No 2) [2006] NSWCA 254
- Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538
- Ryan v Dries [2002] NSWCA 3
- Shephard v Cartwright [1955] AC 431
- Thompson Haulage Pty Ltd v Leigh [2006] NSWSC 540

PARTIES: William Kenneth Buffrey – Plaintiff
Janice Annette Buffrey – First Defendant
ORIX Australia Corporation Limited – Second Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 3332/06

COUNSEL: M.W. Sneddon – Plaintiff
T.S. Hale SC, J.K. Chippindall – Second Defendant

SOLICITORS: Stuart J. Latham – Plaintiff
Tsolakis Solicitors – First Defendant – Submitting appearance
M.D. Nikolaidis & Co – Second Defendant

3332/06 Buffrey v Buffrey & Anor

JUDGMENT
6 December, 2006

Introduction
1 The Plaintiff, Mr Buffrey, and First Defendant, Mrs Buffrey, are the registered proprietors as joint tenants of an investment property, Unit 2, 208 Gardeners Road, Kingsford (“the Kingsford Property”). Mr Buffrey seeks a declaration that Mrs Buffrey holds her interest in the Kingsford Property upon a resulting trust for him and an order that she convey her interest to him accordingly. 2 The circumstances giving rise to the proceedings are as follows. In 2004, Mrs Buffrey was accused by her former employer, ORIX Australia Corporation Ltd (“ORIX”), of having defrauded it of a large sum of money. ORIX commenced proceedings against her to recover the money and obtained an interlocutory asset-freezing order which affected three properties registered in the names of Mr and Mrs Buffrey as joint tenants, namely, their matrimonial home and two home units acquired as investments, one of which is the Kingsford Property. 3 Mr Buffrey says, and I accept, that he first found out about the accusations of ORIX against Mrs Buffrey and of the proceedings commenced by it against her in March this year. 4 Mr Buffrey was advised to protect his own interest in the Kingsford property and, consequently, he commenced these proceedings against Mrs Buffrey. Mrs Buffrey has not participated in the proceedings at all. However, ORIX obtained an order joining it as a second defendant in the proceedings as its interests might be affected and, otherwise, there would be no proper…

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.

Continue reading Buffrey v Buffrey

Details

AGLC: Buffrey v Buffrey [2006] NSWSC 1349
Case: [2006] NSWSC 1349
Decision Date: 6 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Buffrey v Buffrey, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with resolving a dispute between the parties concerning the ownership of property, specifically a house in Melbourne. The central issue arose from the deceased's estate and the interpretation of whether the house was held on a resulting trust or if it was subject to a presumption of advancement to the deceased's wife. The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the facts of the case rebutted the presumption of resulting trust and whether they rebutted the presumption of advancement.

The court began by summarising the principles related to resulting trusts and the presumption of advancement. It noted that a resulting trust arises when a person contributes to the purchase price of property, and it is presumed that the property is held on trust for the contributors. Conversely, the presumption of advancement suggests that a payment by one individual to another is a gift, particularly when made to a spouse. The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine if the presumptions applied. It found that the wife had not rebutted the presumption of resulting trust as there was no clear evidence of an intention to create a trust. The court also considered the presumption of advancement, determining that the facts did not support the wife's claim that the house was a gift to her.

Ultimately, the court held that the presumption of resulting trust was not rebutted by the facts, and neither was the presumption of advancement. Consequently, the property was not subject to a resulting trust nor was it a gift to the wife. The court concluded that the deceased held the property as a tenant in common with his wife, with each owning an equal share. This decision clarified the principles governing resulting trusts and the presumption of advancement, providing a definitive interpretation of the applicable legal principles in this context.

Orders