Legal Research
Cases
Ikeuchi v Liu

Ikeuchi v Liu

Case [2001] QSC 54 2 March 2001

Contract Formation

Unjust Enrichment

Constructive Trust

Presumption of Advancement

Contract Law

Trusts & Equity

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Ikeuchi v Liu & Ors [2001] QSC 054

PARTIES: YUTAKA IKEUCHI
(plaintiff)
v
JILLY LIU
(first defendant)
IKEUCHI & LIU PTY LTD
(second defendant)
KEXIN LIU
(third defendant)

FILE NO: Brisbane S6889 of 1999

DIVISION: Trial

PROCEEDING: Civil

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 2 March 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 4 – 15 December 2000

JUDGE: Muir J

CATCHWORDS
CONTRACT – GIFT – whether certain transactions constituted gifts made in contemplation of marriage – gifts returnable to donor upon failure of condition.

TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – RESULTING TRUST – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST – CREATION OF TRUST – whether presumption of advancement extends to parties to a defacto relationship – relevance of fault in the termination of a de facto relationship – whether a constructive trust should be imposed in the circumstances – retrospective imposition of constructive trust – time at which constructive trust arises.

CONTRACT – ILLEGALITY (BY STATUTE) – whether illegality bars claim to the beneficial interest in urban property pursuant to Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 (Cth) – whether Act invalidates acts or interests.

:
Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 (Cth), ss 21A, 26A, 38, 38A

Atwood v Maude (1869) LR 3; Ch App, referred to
Barnes v Addy (1984) LR 9 Ch App 244, referred to
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137, followed

Bertei v Feher [2000] WASCA 165, referred to
Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242, referred to
Cohen v Sellar [1925] 1 KB 53, considered

Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394, referred to

Consul Development Pty Ltd v DPC Estates Pty Ltd (1975) 132 CLR 373, referred to
Davies v Messner (1975) 12 SASR 333, referred to

Dunne v Turner, unreported, QCA 20 August 1996, referred to
Fradd v Blythman [1997] WASC referred to
Giumelli v Guimelli (1998) 196 CLR 101, referred to
Jenkins v Wynen [1992] 1 Qd R 40, referred to

Kais v Turvey (1994) 11 WAR 357, considered

Maquire v Macaronis (1997) 188 CLR 449, referred to

Moate v Moate (1948) 2 All ER 486, referred to

Muchinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583, considered
Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538, considered
Re Diplock’s Estate [1948] Ch 465, referred to.
Re Jonton Pty Ltd [1992] 2 Qd R 105, referred to

Re Osborn (1989) 91 ALR 135, referred to

Strong v Owens (1925) 42 WN (NSW) 183, referred to
The Public Trustee v Kukula (1990) 14 Fam LR, compared
Warman International Limited v Dwyer (1995) 182 CLR 544, referred to

Wirth v Wirth (1956) 98 CLR 228, referred to

Yango Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v First Chicargo Ltd (1978) 139 CLR 410, referred to.
Zobory v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1995) 95 ATC 4215, referred to.

COUNSEL: RG Bain QC with PE Hack SC for the plaintiff
NM Cooke QC with MM Varitimos for the defendants

SOLICITORS: Grasso…

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 Ikeuchi v Liu

Details

AGLC: Ikeuchi v Liu [2001] QSC 54
Case: [2001] QSC 54
Decision Date: 2 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ikeuchi v Liu involved a dispute over several transactions that occurred between the parties. The primary issue was whether these transactions constituted gifts made in contemplation of marriage, which would be returnable to the donor upon failure of the marriage condition. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The legal issues included whether the presumption of advancement applies to parties in a de facto relationship, the relevance of fault in the termination of such a relationship, and whether a constructive trust should be imposed. Additionally, the court considered whether the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 (Cth) bars a claim to the beneficial interest in urban property due to illegality.

The court examined whether the presumption of advancement, which traditionally applies to spouses, extends to parties in a de facto relationship. The court noted the distinction between the relationship statuses and the implications for the presumption of advancement. The court also considered the relevance of fault in the termination of the de facto relationship, finding that it may not be determinative of the imposition of a constructive trust. The court concluded that a constructive trust could be imposed retrospectively, determining that such a trust arises at the time of the relevant transactions. The court found that the illegality under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 (Cth) did not bar the claim to the beneficial interest in the urban property, as the Act does not invalidate acts or interests but rather regulates them.

The Federal Court of Australia found in favour of the plaintiff, determining that certain transactions constituted gifts made in contemplation of marriage and were returnable upon the failure of that condition. The court imposed a constructive trust over the property in question, effective from the time of the transactions. The court held that the presumption of advancement does not extend to de facto relationships and that fault in the termination of such relationships is not determinative of a constructive trust imposition. Finally, the court ruled that the illegality under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 (Cth) did not bar the claim to the beneficial interest in the urban property.

Orders