Hutchison v Turnbull

The applicants, Hutchison, sought to extend a caveat against the respondent, Turnbull, in relation to a property located in Melbourne. The property had previously been owned by the respondent's deceased mother. The applicants had moved into the property and established a relationship with the respondent that lasted 2.5 years. During that time, the applicants contributed $8,000 to mortgage repayments and an unspecified amount to repairs and renovations. The respondents had sold the property and the applicants lodged a caveat to prevent the registration of the transfer. The respondents sought to discharge the caveat. The applicants claimed that a constructive trust existed over the property, and that the respondents were unable to sell the property without accounting for the applicants' contributions.
The applicants argued that the balance of convenience favoured extending the caveat, as they had made significant contributions to the property and it would be unconscionable for the respondents to sell the property without accounting for those contributions. The respondents argued that there was no evidence of a joint investment or an intention to hold the property in trust for the applicants. The respondents also argued that the applicants' claim was not seriously arguable, as there was no evidence of a resulting trust or an equitable charge.
The court found that there was no evidence of an intention to hold the property in trust for the applicants, and that the applicants' contributions did not create a joint investment. The court also found that the applicants' claim was not seriously arguable, as there was no evidence of a resulting trust or an equitable charge. The court held that the applicants had not demonstrated that it would be unconscionable for the respondents to sell the property without accounting for their contributions, and that the balance of convenience did not favour extending the caveat. The court dismissed the application to extend the caveat.
The court ordered that the caveat be removed and that the transfer of the property be registered. The court also ordered that the applicants pay the respondents' costs of the application.