Lee v Li

Case [2022] NSWSC 1336 30 September 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lee v Li [2022] NSWSC 1336
Hearing dates: 12 – 15 September 2022
Decision date: 30 September 2022
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Peden J
Decision:
(1) The parties are to confer and provide agreed short minutes of order reflecting this judgment and appropriate costs orders to my Associate within 7 days of the publication of this judgment.
(2) Should the parties not be able to agree, the parties are to provide their competing short minutes together with submissions of no more than 2 pages and any necessary evidence, within 10 days of the publication of this judgment.

Catchwords:
EQUITY — Trusts and trustees — Constructive trusts — Common intention — Where two sisters claimed various beneficial and legal interests in four properties — Whether loan or trust in respect of one property — Whether there was an agreement that plaintiff sister would remain the sole beneficial owner of one property — Whether sisters’ original intention to purchase one property as equal co-owners was changed to tenants in common with interests of 99% and 1% by agreement
BANKING AND FINANCE — Banks — Bank accounts — Joint accounts — Whether property purchased using funds from joint account entitled each account holder to co-ownership — No joint account found

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 128

Cases Cited:
Austin v Keele (1987) 10 NSWLR 283
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Bijkerk Investments Pty Ltd v Bikic [2020] NSWSC 1336
Carruthers v Manning [2001] NSWSC 1130
Green v Green (1989) 17 CLR 343
Jemmark Pty Ltd v 10 Egan Street Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 865
Jones v Maynard [1951] Ch 572
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583
Re Bishop (dec’d); National Provincial Bank Ltd v Bishop [1965] 1 All ER 249
Shepherd v Doolan [2005] NSWSC 4
Wang Chunfeng v Law Society of New South Wales [2022] NSWSC 986
Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315
West v Mead [2003] NSWSC 161
Zhang v Zhang [2022] NSWSC 924

Texts Cited:
J McGhee and S Elliott, Snell’s Equity (34th ed, 2019, Sweet & Maxwell)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jenny Lee (Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant)
Cheryl Shu Yan Li (Defendant and Cross-Claimant)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Goodyear (Plaintiff and Cross-Claimant)
T Cleary (Defendant and Cross-Claimant)
Solicitors:
Yingke Law Firm (Plaintiff and Cross-Claimant)
Prime Lawyers (Defendant and Cross-Claimant)

File Number(s): 2019/85958
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

This case is about two sisters’ dispute about the beneficial interests in four properties in Sydney, New South Wales.
The plaintiff, Jenny Lee, has brought these proceedings against her youngest sister, Cheryl Li, claiming the registered title of two properties did not reflect the true beneficial ownership agreed by them. Cheryl has cross-claimed against Jenny, claiming that the registered title of two other properties does not reflect the true beneficial interest agreed by them. The properties are referred to as Arncliffe, Arthur Street, Belmore Street and Mooltan Avenue.
Given the homophonous quality of the sisters’ surnames and the approach taken at the…

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 Lee v Li

Details

AGLC: Lee v Li [2022] NSWSC 1336
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1336
Decision Date: 30 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lee v Li involved two sisters, Lee and Li, who disputed the ownership of four properties. Lee claimed various beneficial and legal interests in these properties, while Li contested these claims. The court was required to determine the nature of the financial arrangements between the sisters and their respective interests in the properties. Specifically, the court had to decide whether there was an agreement that Lee would remain the sole beneficial owner of one of the properties and whether the original intention to purchase one property as equal co-owners had been altered to reflect different ownership interests. The court also needed to assess whether funds from a joint bank account, if any, entitled both sisters to co-ownership of the properties.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered the nature of the financial transactions and agreements between Lee and Li. It was established that no joint bank account was used to purchase the properties, which was a crucial factor in determining the sisters' respective interests. The court also analysed the communications between the sisters to ascertain if there was an agreement that Lee would be the sole beneficial owner of one property and if there had been a change in the intended ownership structure of the other property from equal co-ownership to a 99% and 1% split. The court found that there was a clear agreement that Lee would remain the sole beneficial owner of one property and that the original intention regarding the other property had been altered by mutual consent.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favour of Lee on certain claims while dismissing others. Lee was recognised as the sole beneficial owner of one property, and the court acknowledged the altered ownership interests in another property as agreed upon by both sisters. The court's decision was based on the evidence of the financial arrangements, the sisters' communications, and the lack of a joint bank account for property purchases. The court's ruling provided clarity on the ownership interests in the disputed properties, resolving the sisters' disputes.

Orders