Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Joudo v Joudo [2024] NSWCA 258 Hearing dates: 24 October 2024 Date of orders: 30 October 2024 Decision date: 30 October 2024 Before: Bell CJ at [1];
Gleeson JA at [57];
Stern JA at [58]Decision: Dismiss the appeal with costs.
Catchwords: EQUITY – trusts and trustees – constructive trusts – joint endeavour – where both parties had contributed to costs of the construction of a house purchased in the name of one party – where that party did not reside in the house – where the basis for contemplated arrangement that the other parties and their children would continue to live in the house was removed on the legal owner falling into financial difficulties – whether unconscionable for the legal owner to retain the benefit of contributions made by the other parties and the rise in the value of the house where this was not intended.
Cases Cited: Australian Building & Technical Solutions Pty Limited v Boumelhem [2009] NSWSC 460; (2009) 2 ASTLR 336
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137; [1987] HCA 59
Lloyd v Tedesco (2002) 25 WAR 360; [2002] WASCA 63
Makaritis v Makaritis (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 409
McKinlay v Woods [2021] NSWSC 1510
McKinlay v Woods [2024] NSWCA 122
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583; [1985] HCA 78
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ravina Joudo (Appellant)
Marie Joudo (First Respondent)
Ronnie Joudo (Second Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
A D Crossland with B Flaherty (Appellant)
S Fitzpatrick SC with M Thompson (First and Second Respondents)
Simon Diab & Associates (Appellant)
David Legal (First and Second Respondents)
File Number(s): 2024/147260 Publication restriction: N/A Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 12 March 2024
- Before:
- Pike J
- File Number(s):
- 2022/290628
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
In 2011, the Appellant, Ms Ravina Joudo (Ravina), purchased a property located at 25 Robey Avenue, Middleton Grange (the Property). Ms Maria (Marie) Joudo and
Mr Ronnie (Ronnie) Joudo (together, the Respondents) are the Appellant’s brother and sister-in-law. They resided in the Property from about 30 December 2011 until its sale on 17 July 2023. A breakdown in the relationship between the Appellant and the Respondents precipitated the proceedings.
Ravina commenced proceedings on 27 September 2022 seeking the repayment of rental arrears said to be owed to her by Marie pursuant to an oral lease agreement purportedly entered into in about November or December 2011 in relation to the Property.
Pike J (the primary judge) rejected the existence of any oral lease arrangement and found that, consistent with an Amended Cross-Claim filed by the Respondents, the parties had, in about February 2010, engaged in a joint endeavour…
Continue reading Joudo v Joudo
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Joudo v Joudo [2024] NSWCA 258
- Case
- [2024] NSWCA 258
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether a constructive trust should be imposed over the property in favour of the respondents. This required the court to determine if the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the house and the subsequent events rendered it unconscionable for the legal owner, Mr. Joudo, to retain the entire beneficial interest. Specifically, the court had to consider the nature of the parties' contributions, the original understanding or common intention regarding the use and ownership of the property, and whether a change in circumstances had fundamentally altered the basis of that understanding in a way that would make it inequitable for Mr. Joudo to deny the respondents their beneficial interest.
The Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision that a constructive trust should be imposed. The court reasoned that the respondents had made significant financial contributions towards the purchase and construction of the house, and that there was a common intention that they would reside in the property. When Mr. Joudo's financial difficulties prevented this intended use, and he sought to retain the full benefit of the property and its increased value, this conduct was deemed unconscionable. The court applied principles of equity, particularly in relation to constructive trusts arising from joint endeavours and unconscionable conduct, to prevent the legal owner from being unjustly enriched at the expense of those who had contributed to the property's acquisition and value based on a shared understanding. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Dismiss the appeal with costs.
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.