Jones v Jones - [2014] QDC 150

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Jones v Jones [2014] QDC 150

PARTIES:

HAZEL DAPHNE JONES
(plaintiff)

v

DARREN WAYNE JONES
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

221/08

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

11 July 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

11 - 13 November 2013

JUDGE:

Long SC DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff. 1.

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – IMPLIED TRUSTS – CONSTRUCTIVE AND RESULTING TRUSTS – UNCONSCIONABILITY, UNCONSCIONABLE DEALINGS AND OTHER FORMS OF EQUITABLE FRAUD – where the plaintiff claims that payment was made to the defendant on account of her having a life tenancy or interest in the defendant’s property – whether a constructive trust arose in order to protect against the equitable fraud or unconscionability inherent in the defendant’s insistence upon his right to evict the plaintiff from occupancy of the property
EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT AND UNCONSCIENTIOUS DEALING – Whether the transaction was an unconscionable dealing and should be set aside - Where plaintiff was the defendant’s mother and cared for the defendant’s daughter - whether the plaintiff had a special disability in terms of her emotional attachment to the care of her granddaughter and to pleasing her son
EQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – identifying and valuing allowance to be made for the benefit the plaintiff received by way of residence and payments made by the defendant – where declaration of a constructive trust cannot be effective relief – award for equitable compensation – whether appropriate compensation should include an allowance for compound interest

Property Law Act 1974, s 11, s 12 (1)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 658

Bahr v Nicolay (1988) 164 CLR 604

Bannister v Bannister [1948] 2 All ER 133

Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362

Bridgewater v Leahy (1998) 194 CLR 457 at 493

Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Interhealth Energies (No 2) (2012) 204 FCR 423

Fry v Lane (1888) 40 Ch D 312

Herrod v Johnston [2013] 2 Qd R 102

Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621

Szlazko v Travini [2004] NSWSC 610

Thomas v SMP (International) Pty Ltd (No 6) [2010] NSWSC 1311

White v Cabanas Pty Ltd (No. 2) [1970] Qd R 395

COUNSEL:

M.P. Amerena for the plaintiff

L.J. Nevison for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Greenhalgh Pickard for the plaintiff

Ferguson Cannon for the defendant

Introduction

This matter relates to claims made by the now 79 year old mother of the defendant, in which she seeks various forms of relief, including equitable relief, in respect of a transaction or arrangements between them and which related to her moving, in August 2002, to and residing in a residence owned by the defendant and located at 40 Bernheid Crescent, Sippy Downs (“the Sippy Downs property”) and, in September 2002, paying $100,000 to the defendant, from the proceeds of the sale of a property previously owned and resided in by the plaintiff, at 57 Nicklin Way, Buddina…

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 Jones v Jones

Details

AGLC: Jones v Jones [2014] QDC 150
Case: [2014] QDC 150
Decision Date: 11 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Jones (the plaintiff) and Jones (the defendant) regarding the existence of a life tenancy or interest in a property owned by the defendant. The plaintiff sought to establish a constructive trust on the grounds of unconscionability and equitable fraud. The plaintiff, who was also the defendant's mother, claimed that she had cared for the defendant's daughter and had an emotional attachment to the care of her granddaughter, which the defendant exploited.

The primary legal issue was whether the transaction between the parties constituted an unconscionable dealing that should be set aside. The court had to determine if the plaintiff's emotional attachment and care for her granddaughter constituted a special disability that could render the transaction unconscionable. Additionally, the court needed to decide if a constructive trust should be imposed to protect against the defendant's insistence on evicting the plaintiff from the property. The court also needed to determine the appropriate form of equitable remedy if the plaintiff's claims were successful.

The court found that the defendant's insistence on evicting the plaintiff from the property was unconscionable given the special relationship between them and the defendant's exploitation of the plaintiff's emotional attachment to her granddaughter. The court concluded that the plaintiff had a special disability due to her attachment and care for her granddaughter. Consequently, the court ordered that a constructive trust be imposed to prevent the defendant from unjustly evicting the plaintiff. Given that a declaration of a constructive trust was not effective relief, the court awarded equitable compensation, which included an allowance for compound interest.

The court's final orders included a judgment in favour of the plaintiff, establishing a constructive trust to prevent the defendant from evicting the plaintiff and awarding equitable compensation with compound interest.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff. 1.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Jones v Jones [2014] QDC 150
PARTIES:	HAZEL DAPHNE JONES (plaintiff) v DARREN WAYNE JONES (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	221/08
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:	11 July 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	11 - 13 November 2013
JUDGE:	Long SC DCJ
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff. 1.
CATCHWORDS:	EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – IMPLIED TRUSTS – CONSTRUCTIVE AND RESULTING TRUSTS – UNCONSCIONABILITY, UNCONSCIONABLE DEALINGS AND OTHER FORMS OF EQUITABLE FRAUD – where the plaintiff claims that payment was made to the defendant on account of her having a life tenancy or interest in the defendant’s property – whether a constructive trust arose in order to protect against the equitable fraud or unconscionability inherent in the defendant’s insistence upon his right to evict the plaintiff from occupancy of the property EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT AND UNCONSCIENTIOUS DEALING – Whether the transaction was an unconscionable dealing and should be set aside - Where plaintiff was the defendant’s mother and cared for the defendant’s daughter - whether the plaintiff had a special disability in terms of her emotional attachment to the care of her granddaughter and to pleasing her son EQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – identifying and valuing allowance to be made for the benefit the plaintiff received by way of residence and payments made by the defendant – where declaration of a constructive trust cannot be effective relief – award for equitable compensation – whether appropriate compensation should include an allowance for compound interest Property Law Act 1974, s 11, s 12 (1) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 658 Bahr v Nicolay (1988) 164 CLR 604 Bannister v Bannister [1948] 2 All ER 133 Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362 Bridgewater v Leahy (1998) 194 CLR 457 at 493 Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Interhealth Energies (No 2) (2012) 204 FCR 423 Fry v Lane (1888) 40 Ch D 312 Herrod v Johnston [2013] 2 Qd R 102 Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621 Szlazko v Travini [2004] NSWSC 610 Thomas v SMP (International) Pty Ltd (No 6) [2010] NSWSC 1311 White v Cabanas Pty Ltd (No. 2) [1970] Qd R 395
COUNSEL:	M.P. Amerena for the plaintiff L.J. Nevison for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Greenhalgh Pickard for the plaintiff Ferguson Cannon for the defendant