Kang v Kwan

The case of Kang v Kwan involved a complex web of transactions involving the conveyance of property, loans, and mortgages. The dispute centred on whether these transactions were bona fide or constituted a sham intended to defraud creditors, and whether they could be set aside. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether the loan and mortgage transactions, as well as the discharge of the mortgage and subsequent sale of the property, constituted an alienation of property within the meaning of section 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919. The court had to determine whether there was an intent to defraud creditors and the meaning of "creditors" in section 37A. The court also had to decide whether the defendant was a bona fide purchaser for value and without notice, as well as whether the plaintiff was entitled to an equitable lien or charge in equity to secure payment for work done on the house.

The court examined the nature of the transactions and concluded that they were indeed a sham intended to defraud creditors. The court held that the transactions were not bona fide and were liable to be set aside. The court found that the intent to defraud creditors was clear and that the transactions constituted an alienation of property within the meaning of section 37A. The court further found that the defendant was not a bona fide purchaser for value and without notice, and that the plaintiff was entitled to an equitable lien or charge in equity to secure payment for work done on the house. The court held that the equitable lien or charge was an alternative to a constructive trust as a remedy for unconscionable conduct.

The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented and the legal principles applicable to the case. The court found that the transactions were a sham intended to defraud creditors and that the defendant was not a bona fide purchaser for value and without notice. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to an equitable lien or charge in equity to secure payment for work done on the house, as an alternative to a constructive trust. The court also found that the loan and mortgage transactions constituted a conspiracy against the plaintiff, but that the plaintiff had not suffered any damage. The court ordered that the loan and mortgage transactions be set aside and that the plaintiff be entitled to an equitable lien or charge in equity to secure payment for work done on the house.