Mackay v Pearce

Case [2007] QSC 195

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mackay v Pearce [2007] QSC 195

PARTIES:

CHERYL DENISE MACKAY as executor and trustee of THE ESTATE OF BRIAN HERBERT PEARCE

(plaintiff)

AND

VALERIE ANN PEARCE

(first defendant)

AND

WILLIAM EDWARD PEARCE

(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

10718 of 2005

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

27 July 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 April 2007

JUDGE:

Atkinson J

ORDER:

Claim dismissed. 

CATCHWORDS:

REAL PROPERTY -- GENERAL PRINCIPLES -- INCIDENTS OF ESTATES AND INTERESTS IN LAND -- OWNERSHIP - Where land registered in name of Queensland Housing Commission - Where defendant had paid purchase price and all other costs associated with land and house for almost 40 years - Where defendant had continuous occupation of house for almost 40 years - Whether doctrine of part performance applied.

CONTRACTS -- GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES -- ILLEGAL AND VOID CONTRACTS -- CONTRACTS ILLEGAL BY STATUTE -- PARTICULAR STATUTES – Whether contract void under Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) or State Housing Act 1945(Qld).

CONTRACTS -- GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES -- ILLEGAL AND VOID CONTRACTS -- CONTRACTS ILLEGAL BY STATUTE -- PARTICULAR STATUTES – Whether action defeated by Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld).

EQUITY -- TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES -- CONSTITUTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF TRUSTS GENERALLY -- CLASSIFICATION OF TRUSTS IN GENERAL -- IMPLIED TRUSTS -- RESULTING TRUSTS WHERE INTENTION PRESUMED -- GENERALLY -- WHEN ARISING -- OTHER CASES - Where defendant paid for all outgoings on property - Where applicant had not contributed to property but sought ownership of it pursuant to an asserted interest in the property bequeathed to her by will.

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 92, s 102
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) s 10, s 27(1)
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) s 6, s 10, s 11, s 12, s 38, s 59
State Housing Act 1945(Qld) s 21, s 23, s 23A, s 24, s 26A

Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137, cited

Delehunt v Carmody (1986) 161 CLR 464, cited

Gillett v Holt (2003) 3 WLR 815, cited

McBride v Sandland (1918) 25 CLR 69, cited

Maddison v Alderson (1883) App Cas 467, cited

Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583, cited

Raffaele v F & G Raffaele [1962] WAR 29, cited

Ramsden v Dyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129, cited

Regent v Millett (1976) 133 CLR 679, applied

Riches v Hogben [1985] 2 Qd R 292, applied

Riches v Hogben [1986] 1 QR 315, cited

Sullivan v Sullivan [2006] NSW CA 312, cited

Swettenham v Wild [2005] QCA 264, cited

JC Williamson Ltd v Lukey and Mulholland (1931) 45 CLR 282, considered

COUNSEL:

L Bowden for the first respondent

SOLICITORS:

Quinn & Scattini for the applicant

Angelo Cominos & Associates for the first respondent

  1. This case involved a dispute between Valerie Ann Pearce and Cheryl Denise Mackay as to the ownership of a home at 25 Fitzsimmons Street, Grovely (more particularly described…

Continue reading Mackay v Pearce

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mackay v Pearce [2007] QSC 195
Case
[2007] QSC 195
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mackay and Pearce were involved in a dispute that was brought before the Queensland courts. The matter at hand involved whether a contract between the parties was illegal and void due to its contravention of specific statutory provisions. The statutes in question were the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) and the State Housing Act 1945 (Qld), both of which were alleged to render the contract illegal. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the action was barred by the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld).

The legal issues the court was required to decide were primarily centered on the validity of the contract in light of the statutory provisions mentioned. The court had to determine whether the contract was indeed void under the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) or the State Housing Act 1945 (Qld). Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) precluded the plaintiff from pursuing the claim.

The court reasoned that the contract in question was indeed void under the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) and the State Housing Act 1945 (Qld), as it contravened the provisions of these statutes. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff's action was barred by the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). Consequently, the claim was dismissed, and the court held that the contract was illegal and void. The court found that the plaintiff's action was time-barred, and thus, the claim could not proceed.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the claim brought by Mackay against Pearce. The court determined that the contract was illegal and void due to its contravention of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) and the State Housing Act 1945 (Qld). Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff's action was barred by the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), rendering the claim inadmissible.

Orders

Orders of the court

Claim dismissed.

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.