Drakeford v Bromhead

The matter involved two sisters, the plaintiffs, who were the daughters of a deceased father. The dispute centred around a property which was purchased in the name of one sister using funds provided by the other sister. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that a resulting trust existed in favour of the first sister, who had provided the funds for the purchase, over the property. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The legal issues that the court had to determine were whether the intention of the second sister, who was the registered owner of the property, that the first sister should have beneficial ownership was established, and if so, whether it was sufficient to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust. Additionally, the court had to consider whether money paid by the first sister to the second sister for a specific purpose, which was later rendered unachievable by subsequent events, was held on a resulting trust for the first sister.

The court considered the evidence provided by the parties and found that while the second sister had intended for the first sister to have beneficial ownership of the property, this intention was not communicated clearly enough to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust. The court held that the intention must be established by clear and unequivocal evidence, and in this case, the evidence did not meet that standard. The court also found that the money paid by the first sister to the second sister was not held on a resulting trust for the first sister as the purpose for which the money was paid had been frustrated by subsequent events. The court held that the onus was on the first sister to establish that the money was held on trust for her, and this had not been discharged.

The court held that the presumption of a resulting trust in favour of the first sister was not rebutted by the evidence of intention provided by the second sister. The court also found that the money paid by the first sister to the second sister was not held on trust for the first sister. The court made a declaration that a resulting trust existed in favour of the first sister over the property, but did not make any orders as to the distribution of the property between the parties. The court found that the matter of distribution was a question for the parties to resolve between themselves.