Legal Research
Cases
Daire v Haley (No 2)

Daire v Haley (No 2)

Case [2024] NSWSC 161 27 February 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Daire v Haley (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 161
Decision date: 27 February 2024
Jurisdiction: Equity - Real Property List
Before: Peden J
Decision:
See [143]

Catchwords:
EQUITY — Trusts and trustees — Resulting trusts — Purchase money trusts — Where property registered in names of estranged daughters — Where purchaser bankrupt — Where purchaser forged daughters’ signatures — Whether intention to gift property — Whether registration contrary to policy of Bankruptcy Act or Real Property Act — Whether illegality prevents declaration of resulting trust — Whether unclean hands prevent declaration of resulting trust

Legislation Cited:
Bankruptcy Act 1996 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Defence Service Homes Act 1918 (Cth)
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd (2007) 232 CLR 1
Black Uhlans Inc v New South Wales Crime Commission [2002] NSWC 1060
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Bosanac v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2022) 275 CLR 37
Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242
Commissioner of Taxation v Ramsden [2005] FCAFC 39
Cummins (A Bankrupt) v Cummins (2006) 227 CLR 278
Daire v Haley [2023] NSWSC 77
Fitzgerald v FJ Leonhardt Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 215
Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd v Cassegrain (2013) 87 NSWLR 284
Hire Purchase Furnishing Co Ltd v Richens (1887) 20 QBD 387
J W Broomhead (Vic) Pty Ltd (in liq) v J W Broomhead Ltd [1985] VR 891
Kation Pty Ltd v Lamru [2009] NSWCA 145
Koprivnjak v Koprivnjak [2023] NSWCA 2
Meyers v Casey (1913) 17 CLR 90
Munro v Stuart (1924) 41 SR (NSW) 203n
Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538
Napoli v Napoli [2023] NSWSC 606
Registrar of Titles (WA) v Franzon (1975) 132 CLR 611
Sze Tu v Lowe (2014) 89 NSWLR 317
Twigg v Twigg [2022] NSWCA 68

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Kimberley Jane Daire (First Plaintiff)
Nikki Ann Daire (Second Plaintiff)
Thomas Murray Hayley (First Defendant)
Registrar-General of NSW (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Goodyear (Plaintiffs)
T Crispin (First Defendant)
Solicitors:
Robinson Gill Lawyers (Plaintiffs)
Moama Law (First Defendant)
Solicitor for the Registrar-General of NSW (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/00017459
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

This judgment concerns an unhappy dispute between the plaintiffs, Kimberley Jane Daire and Nikki Ann Daire, and their father, the first defendant, Thomas Murray Haley, about a property at Moama, New South Wales (Property).
Mr Haley has always been in possession of the Property, and the plaintiffs now seek possession.
The Registrar-General of New South Wales is the second defendant and has filed a submitting appearance.

Factual background

The following is a brief summary of facts not in dispute.
In August 2001, Mr Haley exchanged contracts with Murray Shire Council, as vendor, to purchase the Property for the sum of $28,000, paying a deposit of $8,400.
On 15 January 2002, the sale completed by way of vendor finance for the remainder of the purchase price,…

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 Daire v Haley (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Daire v Haley (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 161
Case: [2024] NSWSC 161
Decision Date: 27 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved two sisters, Daire and Haley, who were beneficiaries under a resulting trust concerning a property registered in their names. The property was purchased using funds from a bankrupt purchaser who had forged the sisters' signatures. The dispute centred on whether the registration of the property in the sisters' names was contrary to the policy of the Bankruptcy Act and the Real Property Act, and whether the illegality of the purchase prevented the declaration of a resulting trust. Additionally, it was contested whether the sisters' unclean hands barred the declaration of a resulting trust.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the registration of the property in the sisters' names was in line with the statutory policies, and whether the illegality of the purchase by the bankrupt purchaser, who had forged the sisters' signatures, precluded the declaration of a resulting trust. The court also had to consider whether the sisters' involvement in the illegality barred them from claiming a resulting trust.

The court found that the registration of the property in the sisters' names was not contrary to the policy of the Bankruptcy Act or the Real Property Act. The court held that the statutory policy was not engaged in this context, and therefore, the registration was valid. The court further held that the illegality of the purchase did not prevent the declaration of a resulting trust. The sisters were not barred from claiming the trust due to the illegality of the purchase, as they were not party to the illegality and had not derived any benefit from it. The court also found that the sisters' unclean hands did not prevent the declaration of a resulting trust, as their involvement in the illegality was minimal and did not taint their claim to the trust.

The court ordered that the property be held on resulting trust for the sisters in equal shares, reflecting their respective contributions to the purchase price. The court's decision clarified the application of resulting trust principles in cases involving illegality and statutory policy, and provided guidance on the role of unclean hands in such disputes.

Orders