Li v Tao

The appeal concerned a dispute between Li (appellant) and Tao (respondent) regarding beneficial ownership of property. The primary judge had found that the respondent was the beneficial owner of the property, despite the appellant holding legal title. The appellant appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had established an equitable interest in the property, notwithstanding the absence of written evidence as required by section 23C of the *Conveyancing Act 1919* (NSW). This involved considering the application of the doctrine in *Rochefoucauld v Boustead* and the principles of part performance. The court also considered whether the primary judge’s findings of fact, particularly regarding witness credibility, were open to challenge.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the primary judge's decision, holding that the doctrine in *Rochefoucauld v Boustead* applied to the circumstances. This doctrine permits the enforcement of an oral declaration of trust over land where the legal title holder seeks to deny the trust, even if the declaration itself is inadmissible under the Statute of Frauds. The court found that the evidence established an intention by the respondent to create a trust, and the appellant’s subsequent conduct in asserting legal ownership to defeat that trust brought the doctrine into play. The court also found that the acts relied upon by the respondent were not merely equivocal acts of part performance, but rather evidence of the existence of the trust itself. The appellant’s challenge to the primary judge’s findings of fact and credibility assessments was unsuccessful.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs.