HENDERSON -v- TEMPLETON [2001] WASC 160

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASC 160
Published:	20/06/2001
Case No:	CIV:2234/2000	Heard:	6 JUNE 2001
Coram:	MASTER BREDMEYER	Delivered:	15/06/01
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	CATHERINE FRANCES HENDERSON SUSAN RITA TEMPLETON
Catchwords:	Pleading De facto couple joint ownership of property Constructive trust Unjust enrichment
Legislation:	Property Law Act 1969 (WA), s 126
Case References:	Muschinski v Dodds (1986) 160 CLR 583 Thompson v Winter, unreported; SCt of WA (Murray J); Library No 950644; 28 November 1995 Arthur v Public Trustee (1988) 90 FLR 203 Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137 Brambles Holdings Limited v Trade Practices Commission (1979) 28 ALR 191 Brimson v Rocla Concrete Pipes Limited (1982) 2 NSWLR 937 Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101 Kais v Turvey (1994) 11 WAR 357 Kimberley Downs Pty Ltd & Ors v State of Western Australia & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 6414; 25 August 1986 Lonrho PLC v Fayed & Ors [1992] 1 AC 448

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : HENDERSON -v- TEMPLETON [2001] WASC 160 CORAM : MASTER BREDMEYER HEARD : 6 JUNE 2001 DELIVERED : 15 JUNE 2001 PUBLISHED : 20 JUNE 2001 FILE NO/S : CIV 2234 of 2000 BETWEEN : CATHERINE FRANCES HENDERSON

Plaintiff

AND

SUSAN RITA TEMPLETON

Defendant

Catchwords:

Pleading - De facto couple - joint ownership of property - Constructive trust - Unjust enrichment

Legislation:

Property Law Act 1969 (WA), s 126

Result:

Application dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr L A Tsaknis

Defendant : Mr M J McCusker QC

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Hammond Worthington

Defendant : Bowen Buchbinder Vilensky

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Muschinski v Dodds (1986) 160 CLR 583
Thompson v Winter, unreported; SCt of WA (Murray J); Library No 950644; 28 November 1995

Case(s) also cited:

Arthur v Public Trustee (1988) 90 FLR 203
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Brambles Holdings Limited v Trade Practices Commission (1979) 28 ALR 191
Brimson v Rocla Concrete Pipes Limited (1982) 2 NSWLR 937
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62
Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101
Kais v Turvey (1994) 11 WAR 357
Kimberley Downs Pty Ltd & Ors v State of Western Australia & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 6414; 25 August 1986
Lonrho PLC v Fayed & Ors [1992] 1 AC 448

(Page 3)

1 MASTER BREDMEYER: This is an application by the defendant to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim. The plaintiff says that the application is out of time and the application is opposed on that basis. The application is dated 15 February 2001 and is an application to a Case Management Registrar. The statement of claim in question is the plaintiff's amended statement of claim of 18 January 2001. The application should have been brought within…

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 Henderson v Templeton

Details

AGLC: Henderson v Templeton [2001] WASC 160
Case: [2001] WASC 160
Decision Date: 20 JUNE 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Henderson v Templeton, the parties involved were Henderson and Templeton, a de facto couple who jointly owned a property. The dispute arose when Henderson sought to have a constructive trust imposed on the property, asserting that Templeton had enriched themselves unjustly at Henderson's expense. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the property was subject to a constructive trust and if Templeton had been unjustly enriched by Henderson's contributions. The court had to examine the nature of the relationship between the parties, their financial contributions, and the expectations arising from their de facto relationship. The court also needed to determine if there were any enforceable agreements or understandings between the parties regarding the ownership and use of the property.

The court found that, while the relationship between Henderson and Templeton was indeed a de facto partnership, there was insufficient evidence to establish that Templeton had been unjustly enriched or that the property should be subject to a constructive trust. The court concluded that the contributions made by Henderson were not sufficiently disproportionate to warrant a redistribution of the property's ownership. Additionally, the court found that any agreements or understandings between the parties did not create a basis for imposing a constructive trust. As such, the application was dismissed, and no orders were made in favour of Henderson.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.