Hill v Cronin - [2021] VSC 480

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
TRUSTS, EQUTY AND PROBATE LIST

S ECI 2018 00906

COLIN WOODROFFE HILL	Plaintiff
v
ROBERT DESMOND CRONIN (who is sued in his capacity as Executor of the Will of Ann Marie Hill, deceased)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	MOORE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	4 & 5 November, 3 December 2020 Written submissions filed on 9, 14 & 18 December 2020, 8 & 12 February 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 August 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Hill v Cronin
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 480

---

EQUITY & TRUSTS – Joint endeavour constructive trust – Common intention constructive trust – Plaintiff claimed an equitable interest in a property of which his former partner, deceased, was the sole registered proprietor – Plaintiff brought action against deceased’s estate – Whether property should be held on constructive trust based on plaintiff’s contributions to purchase or based on deceased’s course of conduct – Plaintiff contributed approximately 48% to purchase price – Property was purchased for purpose of their joint endeavour – No constructive trust – Not unconscionable for benefit of contributions plaintiff made to purchase of property to be retained by deceased’s estate – Plaintiff held other assets in the pool of joint assets - Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583, Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137 applied – Zekry v Zekry [2020] VSCA 336 considered – Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 2) (2012) 200 FCR 296 applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	B Gillies	Aitken Partners
For the Defendant	G Mukherji	Davies Elliott

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Factual context.................................................................................................................................... 2

Colin’s case in outline....................................................................................................................... 9

General principles........................................................................................................................... 10

Witnesses........................................................................................................................................... 13

Assessment of Colin’s evidence................................................................................................ 13

The Course of Conduct claim........................................................................................................ 15

Colin’s primary residence.......................................................................................................... 16
Were Colin and Ann in a domestic relationship when Ann died?...................................... 18
Colin’s knowledge and control of his finances....................................................................... 23
The history of Colin and Ann’s property purchases............................................................. 24
WhetherTreetop was recognised as Ann’s house................................................................. 26
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 26

The Contributions claim................................................................................................................. 27

Consideration.............................................................................................................................. 29

Common intention trust................................................................................................................. 42

Disposition........................................................................................................................................ 43

HIS HONOUR:

Ann Hill and Colin Hill commenced a domestic relationship in about 1972. They both worked in the taxi industry and, from 1972 until about 2006, they jointly held and dealt with numerous assets, including real estate and taxi licences.

Ann died on 1 November 2017 at the age of 78 years. Colin is 92 years of age. One of the controversies in this proceeding is whether their domestic relationship continued until Ann passed away, as contended by Colin, or whether it ended at an earlier time as contended by Robert Cronin, the executor of Ann’s estate and the defendant in this proceeding.

The issue for determination in this proceeding is identifying the holder of the equitable interest in a property at 34 Treetop Terrace, Plenty (Treetop) which Ann purchased in April 2004. Mr Cronin asserts that Ann was the sole proprietor of Treetop. Colin contends…

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 Hill v Cronin

Details

AGLC: Hill v Cronin [2021] VSC 480
Case: [2021] VSC 480
Decision Date: 12 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in Hill v Cronin involved a claim by the plaintiff for an equitable interest in a property held by the deceased, who was his former partner. The plaintiff sought this interest based on his contributions to the purchase of the property and alleged that the deceased’s course of conduct warranted the imposition of a constructive trust. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the property should be held on a constructive trust due to the plaintiff’s contributions to the purchase price or because of the deceased’s conduct during their relationship. The plaintiff argued that his contributions amounted to approximately 48% of the purchase price and that the property was acquired for the purpose of their joint endeavour. The court needed to determine if it would be unconscionable for the benefit of the plaintiff’s contributions to be retained by the deceased’s estate.

The court held that no constructive trust should be imposed. The plaintiff had made significant contributions to the purchase price, but the court found it was not unconscionable for the benefit of those contributions to be retained by the deceased’s estate. The plaintiff held other assets within the pool of joint assets, which was a relevant factor in the court’s reasoning. The court applied the principles from Muschinski v Dodds and Baumgartner v Baumgartner to conclude that the plaintiff’s contributions did not warrant a constructive trust. Additionally, the court referenced Zekry v Zekry and Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 2) in its analysis. The court's decision was that the plaintiff’s claim for an equitable interest in the property was unsuccessful.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff’s action against the deceased’s estate was dismissed, and no constructive trust was imposed on the property in question. The court held that the deceased’s estate was entitled to retain the benefit of the plaintiff’s contributions to the purchase of the property.

Orders