Legal Research
Cases
Isin v Ozen

Isin v Ozen

Case [2016] NSWSC 1480 20 October 2016

Equitable Estoppel

Trusts

Unconscionable Conduct

Trusts & Equity

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Isin v Ozen [2016] NSWSC 1480
Hearing dates: 12, 13, 14, and 15 September 2016
Date of orders: 20 October 2016
Decision date: 20 October 2016
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Hallen J
Decision:
Orders that the Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed.

Notes that there is no dispute that the second Plaintiff holds his interest, as tenant in common, in the Property, on trust for the first Plaintiff.

Orders that the Plaintiffs pay the Defendant’s costs of the proceedings.
Orders that the Exhibits should be dealt with in accordance with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.
Catchwords:
EQUITY - equitable remedies - Plaintiffs sought declaration that the legal title to the estate in remainder (after grant of life estate by Deed) held on trust for first Plaintiff - whether equity would perfect a gift of real property – no gift as donors had not done everything necessary for them to have done to effect a transfer of legal title – Relevance of Deed between parties granting life estate
ESTOPPEL - whether Defendant is estopped from denying that legal title to the estate in remainder held on trust for first Plaintiff – no reliance by first Plaintiff on any assumption – no representation that property held on trust – Relevance of Deed granting life estate of the real property – Terms of Deed inconsistent with any representation – Whether terms superseded any agreement to transfer real property
Legislation Cited: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
De Facto Relationships Act 1984 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Brunker v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd (1937) 57 CLR 555; [1937] HCA 29
Corin v Patton (1990) 169 CLR 540; [1990] HCA 12
Coshott v Prentice [2014] FCAFC 88; (2014) 221 FCR 450
Costin v Costin [1994] NSW ConvR 55-715
Costin v Costin (1997) 7 BPR 15,167; [1997] NSW ConvR 55-811
Coyte v Norman; Centre Capital (Newcastle) Pty Ltd v B Scorer [2016] NSWSC 1242
Day v Couch [2000] NSWSC 230
Dillwyn v Llewelyn (1862) 4 De GF & J 517; 45 ER 1285
Gorbunova v The Estate of Berezovsky (aka Platon Elenin) (Deceased) [2016] EWHC 1829
Isin v Ozen as Administrator of the Estate of the late Erdinc Ozen [2015] NSWSC 968
Marchesi v Apostolou [2007] FCA 986
Milroy v Lord (1862) 45 ER 1185; (1862) 4 De GF & J 264
Motor Auction Pty Ltd v John Joyce Wholesale Cars Pty Ltd (1997) 8 BPR 15,565
Pennington v Waine [2002] 1 WLR 2075 (CA); [2002] EWCA Civ 227
Shalhoub v Buchanan [2004] NSWSC 99
Zahra v Francica [2009] NSWSC 1206
Texts Cited: Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity: Doctrines and Remedies (5th ed, 2014, LexisNexis)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Durcan Isin (first Plaintiff)
Ertunc Yasar Ozen (second Plaintiff)
Nur Seda Ozen as Administrator of the Estate of the late Erdic Ozen (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr RPV Carey (Plaintiffs)
Mr J O’Connor (Defendant)
Solicitors:
MCK Lawyers (Plaintiffs)
Pelosi & Associates (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2013/381723

Judgment

Introduction

HIS HONOUR: The…

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 Isin v Ozen

Details

AGLC: Isin v Ozen [2016] NSWSC 1480
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1480
Decision Date: 20 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Isin v Ozen, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the legal title to the estate in remainder, following the grant of a life estate by Deed, was held on trust for the first plaintiff. The case involved a dispute between the parties regarding the equitable title to real property and the potential for an estoppel preventing the defendant from denying the trust arrangement. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether equity would perfect a gift of real property and whether the defendant was estopped from denying the trust arrangement.

The court examined the legal issues of whether equity could perfect a gift of real property and whether the defendant was estopped from denying the trust arrangement. The court assessed whether the donors had done everything necessary to effect a transfer of legal title and whether the terms of the Deed granting the life estate were inconsistent with any representation that the property was held on trust. The court also considered the relevance of the Deed and whether it superseded any agreement to transfer the real property.

The court found that equity would not perfect a gift of real property as the donors had not completed all necessary steps to transfer the legal title. Additionally, the court held that the defendant was not estopped from denying the trust arrangement because the first plaintiff had not relied on any assumption that the property was held on trust, and there was no representation to that effect. The terms of the Deed were deemed inconsistent with any representation that the property was held on trust, and the Deed effectively superseded any prior agreement to transfer the real property.

The court ordered that the declaration sought by the plaintiff be dismissed. The legal title to the estate in remainder was not held on trust for the first plaintiff, and the defendant was not estopped from denying the trust arrangement. The terms of the Deed granting the life estate were upheld, and the court found that the Deed effectively superseded any prior agreement regarding the transfer of the real property.

Orders