SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Lee v Chai [2013] QSC 136
PARTIES:
JONATHAN LEE
(plaintiff)
v
ANGELA CHAI
(defendant)
FILE NO/S:
BS126/04
DIVISION:
Trial
PROCEEDING:
Civil Trial
DELIVERED ON:
3 May 2013
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
5–9, 12 November 2012
JUDGE:
Peter Lyons J
ORDER:
1. Judgment for the Defendant on the Plaintiff’s claim.
2. The Plaintiff pay the Defendant’s costs of and incidental to the claim:
a. on the standard basis until and including 24 May 2009;
b. on the indemnity basis from 25 May 2009
3. Judgment in the sum of $110,000 together with interest in the sum of $101,221.10, a sum of $211,221.10, on the Defendant’s Counterclaim against the Defendants by Counterclaim.
4. The Defendants by Counterclaim pay the Plaintiff by Counterclaim’s costs of and incidental to the Counterclaim on the indemnity basis.
5. Caveat number 707065799 in respect of the property described as Lot 104 on SP100001 County of Stanley, Parish of South Brisbane, Title Reference 50291020 being Unit 108, 242–260 Vulture Street, South Brisbane in the State of Queensland be removed.
6. Upon the receipt by the Defendant of the amount owing under paragraph 3 above, the Defendant do all such things and execute all such documents as are reasonably required by the Plaintiff to transfer title in and the registration of the Porsche motor vehicle the subject of these proceedings to the Plaintiff or his nominee.
7. Subject to paragraph 6, the Defendants by Counterclaim be enjoined from dealing with the Porsche motor vehicle the subject of these proceedings until the receipt by the Defendant of the amounts owing under these orders or further order.
CATCHWORDS:
EVIDENCE – WITNESSES – CROSS-EXAMINATION – AS TO CREDIT – ON FORMER STATEMENTS – TENDERING OR CALLING EVIDENCE AS TO FORMER INCONSISTENT STATEMENT – where witness was cross–examined on a prior affidavit – where it was sought to tender the prior affidavit in re–examination – whether the prior affidavit was admissible as evidence
EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – IMPLIED TRUSTS – RESULTING TRUSTS – REBUTTAL OF IMPLICATION – where property was purchased in the name of the defendant – where the plaintiff provided the purchase money for the property – where the plaintiff and the defendant were in a sexual relationship – where there was evidence the plaintiff intended the property to be a gift – whether the presumption of a resulting trust was rebutted
EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – UNDUE INFLUENCE AND DURESS – PRESUMPTION OF UNDUE INFLUENCE FROM RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES – OTHER RELATIONSHIPS – where property was purchased in the name of the defendant – where the plaintiff provided the purchase money for the property – where the plaintiff and the defendant were in a sexual relationship – whether the relationship gave rise to a presumption of undue influence
EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – UNCONSCIONABILITY, UNCONSCIONABLE DEALINGS AND OTHER FORMS OF EQUITABLE FRAUD – SPECIAL DISABILITY – where property was purchased in the name of the defendant – where the plaintiff provided the…
Continue reading Lee v Chai
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lee v Chai [2013] QSC 136
- Case
- [2013] QSC 136
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the prior affidavit was admissible as evidence, and that the plaintiff had failed to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust. The court also found that the relationship between the parties did not give rise to a presumption of undue influence. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff's medical conditions did not place him at a special disadvantage, and that the defendant was not aware of any such disadvantage. The court found in favour of the defendant on the plaintiff's claim, and ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff a sum of money in relation to the counterclaim.
The court ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the defendant on the plaintiff's claim, and that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs. The court also ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the defendant on the counterclaim, and that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs in relation to the counterclaim. The court further ordered that a caveat over the property be removed, and that the defendant transfer the vehicle to the plaintiff upon receipt of the relevant payment. Finally, the court ordered that the defendant be enjoined from dealing with the vehicle until the payment was received or further order.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Judgment for the Defendant on the Plaintiff’s claim.
2. The Plaintiff pay the Defendant’s costs of and incidental to the claim:
a. on the standard basis until and including 24 May 2009;
b. on the indemnity basis from 25 May 2009
3. Judgment in the sum of $110,000 together with interest in the sum of $101,221.10, a sum of $211,221.10, on the Defendant’s Counterclaim against the Defendants by Counterclaim.
4. The Defendants by Counterclaim pay the Plaintiff by Counterclaim’s costs of and incidental to the Counterclaim on the indemnity basis.
5. Caveat number 707065799 in respect of the property described as Lot 104 on SP100001 County of Stanley, Parish of South Brisbane, Title Reference 50291020 being Unit 108, 242–260 Vulture Street, South Brisbane in the State of Queensland be removed.
6. Upon the receipt by the Defendant of the amount owing under paragraph 3 above, the Defendant do all such things and execute all such documents as are reasonably required by the Plaintiff to transfer title in and the registration of the Porsche motor vehicle the subject of these proceedings to the Plaintiff or his nominee.
7. Subject to paragraph 6, the Defendants by Counterclaim be enjoined from dealing with the Porsche motor vehicle the subject of these proceedings until the receipt by the Defendant of the amounts owing under these orders or further order.
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.