Legal Research
Cases
Cresswell v Cresswell

Cresswell v Cresswell

Case [2017] VSCA 272 28 September 2017

Entitlement to Fair Trial

Trusts & Equity

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2017 0001

CHARLES JAMES CRESSWELL	First Applicant
And
GAIL ANNE CRESSWELL	Second Applicant
v
COREY CRESSWELL	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	SANTAMARIA and McLEISH JJA and KEOGH AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 May 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 September 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 272
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2016] VCC 1716 (Judge Macnamara)

---

EQUITY – Remedies – Specific performance – Availability of specific performance to enforce non-contractual obligations – Oral agreement for sale of property between parents and son – Where specific performance sought as remedy for estoppel and constructive trust claims – Where trial judge awarded specific performance of agreement.

COURTS AND JUDGES – Procedural fairness – Entitlement to fair trial – Where claim in contract not clearly pleaded – Where pleading used language of specific performance to describe remedies by way of estoppel and constructive trust – Where applicants at trial treated case as one of estoppel and constructive trust – Where trial judge awarded specific performance of agreement – Whether denial of procedural fairness – Water Board v Moustakas (1994) 180 CLR 491 and Suvaal v Cessnock City Council (2003) 200 ALR 1 applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicants	Mr M Y Bearman With Mr K E Mihaly	Eales & Mackenzie
For the Respondent	Mr C R Northrop	Williams Winter

SANTAMARIA JA
McLEISH JA
KEOGH AJA:

Introduction

Charles and Gail Cresswell (‘the applicants’) are the parents of Corey Cresswell (‘the respondent’) and his sister, Tamarand.

Prior to 30 November 2001, the applicants, the respondent and Tamarand agreed that:

(a) the applicants would purchase a property;

(b) the applicants would pay $100,000 towards the purchase price and borrow the remainder by a mortgage facility;

(c) the respondent and Tamarand would each contribute $125 per week to the repayment of the mortgage and would maintain the property;

(d) the applicants would hold the property as an investment for the benefit of the applicants, the respondent and Tamarand; and

(e) on the sale of the property, the proceeds of sale would be applied in payment of each party’s contributions and the balance divided equally between them.

By a contract dated 30 November 2001, the applicants purchased, for $294,750, a three-bedroom townhouse at 3 Annie Borat Close, Brunswick (‘the property’), more particularly described as certificate of title volume 10496 folio 982.

The applicants paid approximately $100,000 of the purchase price from their own funds. They borrowed the balance of $208,750, which included stamp duty and incidental expenses, from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (‘the CBA’). The borrowed amount was secured by a first registered mortgage.

In January 2002, the applicants were registered as the property’s proprietors.

Shortly thereafter, the respondent and Tamarand took up residence. In general, they each paid $125 per week to the applicants by internet transfers to the applicants’ account with the Broken Hill Community Credit Union.

Towards the end of 2003, Tamarand ceased living at the property and making payments.

The respondent continued…

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 Cresswell v Cresswell

Details

AGLC: Cresswell v Cresswell [2017] VSCA 272
Case: [2017] VSCA 272
Decision Date: 28 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Cresswell v Cresswell, the dispute arose between the parties over the specific performance of an oral agreement for the sale of property between parents and their son. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the trial judge awarded specific performance of the agreement. The applicants sought specific performance as a remedy for claims of estoppel and constructive trust. The legal issues before the court included whether specific performance could be granted to enforce non-contractual obligations and whether the applicants were denied procedural fairness due to the trial judge's treatment of the case.

The court examined whether specific performance was an appropriate remedy for enforcing non-contractual obligations, such as those arising from estoppel and constructive trust claims. It was noted that while specific performance is typically associated with contractual obligations, equity has the power to grant it in certain circumstances. The court considered the nature of the agreement and the remedies sought, concluding that specific performance could be granted in this case to address the equitable obligations imposed by the estoppel and constructive trust claims. The court also assessed whether the applicants were denied procedural fairness due to the trial judge's treatment of the case as one involving estoppel and constructive trust, rather than contract.

The court found that there was no denial of procedural fairness, as the applicants had been aware of the equitable nature of the claims and had not objected to the trial judge's approach. The court held that the trial judge's decision to award specific performance was consistent with the principles of equity and did not infringe upon the applicants' right to a fair trial. The applicants' argument that the trial judge had misapplied the law by awarding specific performance in a non-contractual context was rejected, as the court determined that specific performance was an appropriate remedy in this case. The trial judge's decision was upheld, and the applicants' appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court confirmed the trial judge's decision to award specific performance of the oral agreement for the sale of property. The applicants' claims for estoppel and constructive trust were also upheld, and the court determined that specific performance was an appropriate remedy to enforce the equitable obligations arising from those claims. The court rejected the applicants' argument that they were denied procedural fairness and affirmed the trial judge's approach to the case.

Orders