Field v. Loh & Anor - [2007] QSC 350

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Field v Loh & Anor [2007] QSC 350

PARTIES:

MAY FIELD
(plaintiff)
v
LOH NGIAP SIONG and SURAY BINTE ISNIN
(defendants)

FILE NO:

1230 of 2006

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

27 November 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6, 7, 8 August 2007

JUDGE:

Douglas J

ORDER:

1.Declare that the plaintiff has an equitable interest in the real property described as Lot 150 on registered plan 142337 and having title reference 50363926 (“the property”) to the extent of $223,800 (“the plaintiff’s interest”);

2.Declare that the defendants hold the plaintiff’s interest in the property as trustees.

Order, pursuant to s. 38 of the Property Law Act 1974 that:

(i)Morgan Lane and Rajendra Khatri of Worrells Forensic Accountants be appointed trustees for the sale of the property;

(ii)That the property vest in the trustees, subject to encumbrances affecting the entirety but free from encumbrances affecting any undivided shares to be held by them on statutory trust for sale;

(iii)That the said trustees be at liberty to sell the property by auction or by private sale and that the plaintiff or defendants be at liberty to purchase the property privately or by auction subject to such terms as to this honourable Court may seem meet;

(iv)That the net proceeds of the sale of the property after deduction of the costs of the trustees be held to the account of the plaintiff and the defendants in proportions equal to their interests in the property.

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – TRUST AND TRUSTEES – CONSTITUTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF TRUST GENERALLY – IMPLIED TRUSTS – RESULTING TRUST – WHERE INTENTION PRESUMED – REBUTTAL OF IMPLICATION – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST - Payment to purchase of house on understanding of continued ability to reside there – where understanding breaks down – whether resulting trust in favour of repayment – statement by plaintiff that payment made as gift – whether unconscionable to hold her to that statement in the circumstances – whether constructive trust should be declared.

Avondale Printers and Stationers Ltd v Haggie [1979] 2 NZLR 124, applied
Re Bulankoff [1986] 1 Qd R 366, applied
Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242, applied
Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447, applied
Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621, considered
O’Connor v Hart [1985] 1 NZLR 159, considered
Swettenham v Wilde [2005] QCA 264, applied

COUNSEL:

L J Nevison for the plaintiff
S C Fisher for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Sajen Legal for the plaintiff
Neumann & Turnour for the defendants

Douglas J: In July 2005 the plaintiff, Mrs Field, paid $184,000 to assist the defendants to buy a house. Mrs Field had been living with Mr and Mrs Loh and their children since some time in May 2005. She continued living with the Lohs, who are the defendants to these proceedings, until mid October 2005 when she was asked to leave the property by Mr Loh and…

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 Field v. Loh & Anor

Details

AGLC: Field v Loh [2007] QSC 350
Case: [2007] QSC 350
Decision Date: 27 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Field v. Loh & Anor involved a dispute over a house purchase where the plaintiff made a contribution towards the purchase price, under the understanding that she would have the continued ability to reside in the property. The defendants, Loh and Anor, later broke this understanding, leading the plaintiff to seek a declaration of equitable interest and a constructive trust over the property. The legal issues in the case revolved around the nature of the plaintiff's contribution towards the property and whether a resulting trust should be recognised in her favour. The court was also required to consider whether the plaintiff's statement that her contribution was a gift could be upheld, or whether it would be unconscionable to do so given the circumstances.

The court found that the plaintiff's contribution was not intended as a gift and that the defendants were holding the property on trust for both parties. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the plaintiff's statement should be upheld as a gift, finding it unconscionable to do so given the context of the contribution. The court declared that the plaintiff had an equitable interest in the property and that the defendants held this interest on trust. Orders were made for the appointment of trustees for the sale of the property, with the net proceeds to be held in proportion to the parties' interests.

The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering the actual intentions behind a contribution towards a property purchase, rather than relying solely on statements made by the contributor. The court also emphasised the need to consider the broader context of the contribution and the parties' understandings when determining whether a trust should be recognised. The orders made by the court provided a practical resolution to the dispute, ensuring that the plaintiff's equitable interest was protected and that the property could be sold in a manner that was fair to all parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.Declare that the plaintiff has an equitable interest in the real property described as Lot 150 on registered plan 142337 and having title reference 50363926 (“the property”) to the extent of $223,800 (“the plaintiff’s interest”);

2.Declare that the defendants hold the plaintiff’s interest in the property as trustees.

Order, pursuant to s. 38 of the Property Law Act 1974 that:

(i)Morgan Lane and Rajendra Khatri of Worrells Forensic Accountants be appointed trustees for the sale of the property;

(ii)That the property vest in the trustees, subject to encumbrances affecting the entirety but free from encumbrances affecting any undivided shares to be held by them on statutory trust for sale;

(iii)That the said trustees be at liberty to sell the property by auction or by private sale and that the plaintiff or defendants be at liberty to purchase the property privately or by auction subject to such terms as to this honourable Court may seem meet;

(iv)That the net proceeds of the sale of the property after deduction of the costs of the trustees be held to the account of the plaintiff and the defendants in proportions equal to their interests in the property.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Field v Loh & Anor [2007] QSC 350
PARTIES:	MAY FIELD (plaintiff) v LOH NGIAP SIONG and SURAY BINTE ISNIN (defendants)
FILE NO:	1230 of 2006
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	27 November 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6, 7, 8 August 2007
JUDGE:	Douglas J
ORDER:	1.Declare that the plaintiff has an equitable interest in the real property described as Lot 150 on registered plan 142337 and having title reference 50363926 (“the property”) to the extent of $223,800 (“the plaintiff’s interest”); 2.Declare that the defendants hold the plaintiff’s interest in the property as trustees. *Order, pursuant to s. 38 of the Property Law Act* 1974 that: (i)Morgan Lane and Rajendra Khatri of Worrells Forensic Accountants be appointed trustees for the sale of the property; (ii)That the property vest in the trustees, subject to encumbrances affecting the entirety but free from encumbrances affecting any undivided shares to be held by them on statutory trust for sale;** (iii)That the said trustees be at liberty to sell the property by auction or by private sale and that the plaintiff or defendants be at liberty to purchase the property privately or by auction subject to such terms as to this honourable Court may seem meet; (iv)That the net proceeds of the sale of the property after deduction of the costs of the trustees be held to the account of the plaintiff and the defendants in proportions equal to their interests in the property.
CATCHWORDS:	EQUITY – TRUST AND TRUSTEES – CONSTITUTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF TRUST GENERALLY – IMPLIED TRUSTS – RESULTING TRUST – WHERE INTENTION PRESUMED – REBUTTAL OF IMPLICATION – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST - Payment to purchase of house on understanding of continued ability to reside there – where understanding breaks down – whether resulting trust in favour of repayment – statement by plaintiff that payment made as gift – whether unconscionable to hold her to that statement in the circumstances – whether constructive trust should be declared. Avondale Printers and Stationers Ltd v Haggie [1979] 2 NZLR 124, applied Re Bulankoff [1986] 1 Qd R 366, applied Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242, applied Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447, applied Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621, considered O’Connor v Hart [1985] 1 NZLR 159, considered Swettenham v Wilde [2005] QCA 264, applied
COUNSEL:	L J Nevison for the plaintiff S C Fisher for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Sajen Legal for the plaintiff Neumann & Turnour for the defendants