El-Debel v Micheletto (Trustee)

The case of El-Debel v Micheletto (Trustee) involved a dispute regarding the extent of interests held on resulting trust for a bankrupt in certain properties registered in the names of parties associated with the bankrupt. The primary issue was whether the bankrupt had provided all or part of the purchase price for these properties, and if so, whether this resulted in the bankrupt holding a resulting trust interest. The dispute also involved whether the presumption of a resulting trust was rebutted by evidence of the bankrupt's intention to the contrary, and whether the primary judge's reasoning was based on findings of an express oral trust that was not properly advanced in the hearing.

The court examined several legal issues, including whether the reasoning of the primary judge relied on findings of an express oral trust not presented in the hearing, whether the interest in the property formed part of the bankrupt estate from a previous bankruptcy, and whether the primary judge erred in considering a file note of a solicitor as an admission by the bankrupt's mother of a trust. Additionally, the court considered whether the primary judge erred in finding that payments made by companies associated with the bankrupt were contributions by the bankrupt, and whether the primary judge's reasoning involved impermissible speculation and conjecture. The court also examined whether the principle in Jones v Dunkel should not apply where a witness had been subjected to compulsory examination.

The court found that there was insufficient evidence to support some of the primary judge's findings, and that the primary judge's reasoning contained errors. The court concluded that the bankrupt held a 38.04% resulting trust interest in the second Peakhurst property, rather than the 43% determined by the primary judge. The court also found that the primary judge erred in using the content of a file note as an admission by the bankrupt's mother, and in considering payments by companies associated with the bankrupt as contributions by the bankrupt. The appeals were allowed in part, and the final orders of the primary judge were varied accordingly. The parties were directed to attempt to agree on costs orders, with any unresolved issues to be determined on the papers.