Hughes v Sangster

[2019] ACTSC 178

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Hughes v Sangster

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 178

Hearing Dates:

13-16 May 2019 and 12 June 2019

DecisionDate:

26 July 2019

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [109]

Catchwords:

EQUITY – JOINT TENANCY – Severance – property purchased as joint tenants by mother and daughter – Agreement or understanding that each would contribute $190,000 – daughter contributes $20,000 – whether agreement or understanding varied so that amount of $125,000 is be deducted from required contribution or so that contributions to household reduced required contributions – constructive trust imposed on daughter’s interest in property.

Legislation Cited:

Civil Law (Property) Act 2006 (ACT), s 244

Guardianship and Management of Property Act 1991 (ACT), s 14

Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), dictionary cl 4(1)(c)

Cases Cited:

Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137

Bennett v Horgan (unreported, New South Wales Supreme Court, Bryson J, 3 June 1994)
Green v Green (1989) 17 NSWLR 343
Hill v Hill [2005] NSWSC 863
Kriezis v Kriezis [2004] NSWSC 167
Muschinksi v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583
Public Trustee of the Australian Capital Territory v Hall [2003] ACTCA 27
Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315

Webb v Ryan [2012] VSC 377

Parties:

Christina Ella Hughes by her Guardian and Manager Warwick Samuel Hughes (Plaintiff)

Martell Justine Sangster (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel

JA Rose (Plaintiff)

DA Hassall (Defendant)

Solicitors

Bradley Allen Love Lawyers (Plaintiff)

Legal on London (Defendant)

File Number:

SC 478 of 2017

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1. These are proceedings between a mother and her daughter.  Christine Hughes, the plaintiff, sues by her guardian and manager, Warwick Hughes.  She was 79 years old at the time of the hearing.  She suffers from Alzheimer’s dementia.  The defendant is Martell Sangster, the daughter of the plaintiff.  She was 50 years old at the time of the hearing.   The case relates to the respective interests of the plaintiff and the defendant in a property in Nicholls, a suburb of Canberra (the Nicholls property).  That land was acquired by the plaintiff and the defendant as joint tenants in 1999.  A house was constructed on the land and mother and daughter lived together along with the daughter’s family from the end of 2000.  Subsequently, in 2007, the defendant moved out of the property.  At about the time of the commencement of the proceedings in 2017, the plaintiff took steps to sever the joint tenancy with the effect that the parties are now tenants in common in equal shares.

1. The substantial contest in these proceedings relates to:

(a)the nature of the agreement or understanding between the plaintiff and the defendant as to their joint ownership of the property;

(b)whether, and in what way, the agreement or understanding was varied; and

(c)the extent of contributions made to the acquisition and maintenance of the property pursuant to that agreement or understanding.

1. The plaintiff’s case is that the agreement or understanding between the plaintiff and the defendant was one which required the defendant to pay to the plaintiff an amount…