Guojin Huang v Jinghong Wei (No 2)

In this case, Guojin Huang sought an account of the income and profits generated by property jointly owned with Jinghong Wei. The dispute centred on whether the property was held on a bare trust, as contended by Huang, or if it constituted a common intention trust as argued by Wei. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The primary issue before the Court was to determine the nature of the co-ownership arrangement and whether Huang was entitled to an account of the property's income and profits. The Court had to consider whether the assignment of the property to Wei was a mere formality or if it signified a substantive transfer of equitable interest.

The Court examined the documentary evidence and the intentions of the parties as expressed in their written agreements and correspondence. The Court found that the assignment of the property to Wei was not a substantive transfer of equitable interest but rather an assignment in name only. The Court concluded that the property was held on a bare trust for Huang, entitling him to an account of the income and profits. The Court rejected Wei's argument that a common intention trust existed, as there was insufficient evidence to support such a claim. The Court ordered an inquiry to determine the income and profits generated by the property and to ascertain the appropriate accounting period.

In summary, the Court found in favour of Huang, holding that the property was held on a bare trust for him and that Wei was required to account for the income and profits generated by the property. The Court ordered an inquiry to determine the precise amount of the account due to Huang. This decision highlights the importance of examining the intentions of the parties and the documentary evidence in determining the nature of co-ownership arrangements and the rights of co-owners.