JAB v the executors of the estate of the late MST

The plaintiff, JAB, sought relief in the Supreme Court against the executors of the estate of the late MST, following the breakdown of their de facto relationship. JAB and MST had been in a relationship during which they agreed to purchase a property together. The property was registered solely in MST's name, and JAB claimed she made contributions to its purchase and improvement. JAB sought a declaration that the executors hold the title to the property on trust for herself and MST in equal shares and that a transfer of the property, allegedly executed by MST, should be recognised. The executors argued that the claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth courts under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and that they were not de facto financial causes.

The court had to decide whether the claims were de facto financial causes and, if so, whether they fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth courts. The court also needed to determine whether a constructive trust should be imposed on the property, based on the contributions made by JAB and the alleged agreement to purchase the property together. Finally, the court had to consider whether the transfer of the property was validly executed by MST, given the dispute over the signature and the lack of proper witnessing.

The court found that the claims were indeed de facto financial causes and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth courts. It was held that the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) provided the primary forum for resolving disputes arising out of de facto relationships, and the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear these claims. The court also found that there was no evidence to support the imposition of a constructive trust on the property, as there was no unconscionability or joint endeavour as claimed by JAB. Furthermore, the court determined that the transfer was not validly executed due to the lack of proper witnessing.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and the question of costs was adjourned to a date to be fixed.