Makaritis v Makaritis (No 2)

The case of Makaritis v Makaritis (No 2) was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff sought to establish a proprietary interest over a house, which was transferred by her to a company controlled by the first defendant. The property in question was to be rented out to service the mortgage taken out by the company, with the plaintiff intending to occupy a granny flat to be constructed on the property rent-free. The plaintiff contributed money towards the purchase and construction of the property, leading her to claim a proprietary interest over it. The court was required to determine whether a joint endeavour constructive trust existed, as well as whether the claims for proprietary estoppel and unconscionable conduct were established.

The court examined the nature of the contributions made by the plaintiff and whether they were intended to result in a proprietary interest in the property. It was noted that the plaintiff's contributions were made with the understanding that they would result in her occupying the granny flat rent-free, but not necessarily in her acquiring a proprietary interest over the property. The court found that a joint endeavour constructive trust did exist, as the contributions made by the plaintiff were intended to result in a benefit to her, namely the right to occupy the granny flat rent-free. However, the court held that the claims for proprietary estoppel and unconscionable conduct were not established, as there was no clear and unequivocal promise made by the first defendant that the plaintiff would acquire a proprietary interest over the property.

The Supreme Court of Victoria found in favour of the plaintiff, establishing a joint endeavour constructive trust over the property in question. The court ordered that the plaintiff's interest in the property be recognised and protected, ensuring that she would continue to occupy the granny flat rent-free. The claims for proprietary estoppel and unconscionable conduct were dismissed, as the court found that there was no clear and unequivocal promise made by the first defendant that the plaintiff would acquire a proprietary interest over the property.