Jones v McQuilkin

The case of Jones v McQuilkin involved a dispute between the plaintiff, who was a builder, and the defendant, who was his partner in a de facto relationship. The dispute centred on the ownership and renovation of a house they intended to purchase and renovate as a joint venture. The contract for the property was in both their names, but the defendant later decided to purchase the property in her name alone. The plaintiff carried out restoration work on the property and invoiced the defendant, though mostly with a low margin on cost. The defendant paid the invoices until she ran out of money, but the plaintiff had already paid third parties $42,360 due to a strong business relationship with them. After their relationship broke down, the plaintiff lodged a caveat against the defendant's dealings, claiming an equitable interest as a "beneficial interest by way of contribution to acquisition and improvement of property". The plaintiff did not contribute to the acquisition of the property. The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff's caveat was justified, and whether the defendant had received an "equitable windfall".

The court found that the plaintiff's caveat was justified by way of estoppel. The court held that the plaintiff, upon the assertion of a joint venture, had acted to his detriment by working for a low margin. The court also found that the defendant had received an "equitable windfall", and that the property was subject to a constructive trust. However, the court did not find that the plaintiff was entitled to an equitable lien. The defendant had not filed a notice of motion, and the court made an order extending the caveat until further order. The court found that the plaintiff's actions were sufficient to create an estoppel, and that the defendant had received an "equitable windfall" by purchasing the property in her name alone without compensating the plaintiff for his work. The court held that the property was subject to a constructive trust, and that the plaintiff's equitable interest should be recognised. However, the court did not find that the plaintiff was entitled to an equitable lien, as the plaintiff had not made any financial contribution to the acquisition of the property.