14, 15, 16 and 17 September 2020; final written submissions received 10 November 2020
Decision date:
24 February 2021
Jurisdiction:
Equity
Before:
Robb J
Decision:
See pars [292] to [306]. Parties should confer and provide draft short minutes of order giving effect to these reasons.
Catchwords:
EQUITY — Equitable charges and liens — Contribution to acquisition or improvement of another’s property — Intention –– Resulting trusts –– Common intention constructive trusts –– Constructive trusts arising out of the failure of a joint endeavour –– Finding as to the existence of such trusts evolving from one to the other over time as a result of changing circumstances
EQUITY — Equitable interests in property — Nature of equitable interests
Gloria Ann Hansen (plaintiff) Tracey Lee Noble (defendant)
Representation:
Counsel: Gordon McGrath (plaintiff) Sean Docker (defendant)
Solicitors: Browns the Family Lawyers (plaintiff) Caldwell Martin Cox (defendant)
File Number(s):
2018 / 272487
Judgment
In these proceedings the plaintiff, Gloria Ann Hansen, sues her daughter, Tracey Lee Noble, for equitable relief arising out of the circumstances in which the defendant acquired an interest in two residential properties.
The first property, a home at an address in Wattle Grove Sydney, was transferred to the defendant on 24 June 2005 by the plaintiff and her brother, Allan Reginald Somerville, as executors of the estate of their mother, the late Mary Somerville, for a price of $439,440.
The second property is land and a residence at Lakesland in Western Sydney, which the defendant purchased with her husband, Murray Stuart Noble, in 2006.
The plaintiff called evidence in support of her case from her elder daughter, Maryann Carter, and from the defendant's daughter, Ashlee Anne Marie Burdon.
As the parties did in their submissions, with no disrespect intended, I will refer to the members of the family who gave evidence by their first names.
Gloria also called evidence from a solicitor, Helen James, who acted for the parties to the contract for sale of the Wattle Grove property, and also Raymond Victor Zavattaro, who was the witness to Tracey's signature to a mortgage that was executed by Gloria and Tracey in connection with the transfer of the Wattle Grove property.
Finally, Gloria called evidence from one of the long-term tenants of the Wattle Grove property, Darren Mark Cooper.
Relief claimed by Gloria
The pleadings that were…
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 Hansen v Noble
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hansen v Noble [2021] NSWSC 138
Case
[2021] NSWSC 138
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Hansen v Noble involved a dispute between two parties, Hansen and Noble, regarding their respective rights and interests in a property. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the court had to determine whether equitable interests and trusts existed in relation to the property in question. The central issue was whether the contributions made by Hansen to the acquisition and improvement of the property were sufficient to warrant the imposition of an equitable charge, lien, or trust in his favour. The court also needed to consider whether any common intention constructive trusts or constructive trusts arising from the failure of a joint endeavour should be recognised.
The court's reasoning involved an in-depth examination of the nature and evolution of the equitable interests in the property, as well as the intentions of the parties involved. The court found that the equitable interests in the property had changed over time, transitioning from one form of trust to another due to the evolving circumstances of the case. The court concluded that the contributions made by Hansen to the property warranted the imposition of an equitable charge and lien in his favour, as well as the recognition of a resulting trust. Additionally, the court found that a common intention constructive trust should be imposed, recognising the shared understanding and intentions of the parties in relation to the property.
The court's decision was that Hansen was entitled to an equitable charge and lien over the property, as well as an equitable interest in the form of a resulting trust. Furthermore, a common intention constructive trust was imposed, reflecting the shared understanding and intentions of the parties. The court also awarded equitable compensation to Hansen in recognition of his contributions to the property. The final orders of the court were that Hansen's equitable interests and trusts in the property were recognised, and he was awarded equitable compensation for his contributions.