Masson v Parsons - [2019] HCATrans 79

[2019] HCATrans 079

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S6 of 2019

B e t w e e n -
MASSON
Appellant

and
PARSONS
First Respondent
PARSONS
Second Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER
Third Respondent

KIEFEL CJ
BELL J
GAGELER J
KEANE J
NETTLE J
GORDON J
EDELMAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 16 APRIL 2019, AT 10.00 AM

____________________

MR M.P. KEARNEY, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friends, MR C.L. LENEHAN, MS E.A. LAWSON and MR D.P. HUME on behalf of the appellant. (instructed by (Steiner Legal)

MR B.W. WALKER, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friends, MS M. McMAHON and MR J.S. STELLIOS for the first and second respondents. (instructed by McDonald Johnson Lawyers)

MR S.B. LLOYD, SC: If it please the Court, I appear with MS S.M. CHRISTIE, SC and MR P.D. HERZFELD for the third respondent. (instructed by Legal Aid NSW)

MR S.P. DONAGHUE, QC, Solicitor‑General of the Commonwealth of Australia: May it please the Court, I appear with MR B.K. LIM for the Commonwealth Attorney‑General intervening. (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

MS R.M. DOYLE, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my MS F.I. GORDON for the Attorney‑General for the State of Victoria intervening. (instructed by the Victorian Government Solicitor)

KIEFEL CJ: Ms Doyle, while you are at the lectern, I see that in the appellant’s reply issue is taken with that part of your argument which seeks to develop the common law and the point taken against you is a not inconsiderable one, it is a rather large topic on its own but, more importantly, does not find itself in the section 78B notice and puts your position as intervener somewhat curiously. The central point seems to be that it just has not been argued and is no part of the appeal before the Court.

MS DOYLE: We corresponded with our friends about this in early April, and indicated that we had given some consideration to this matter, and took their point this way. An intervener obviously cannot file a notice of contention but it is understood since the decision in K‑Generation that there may be an occasion for seeking an analogous procedure. The expedition which this matter has received and the sequence of events, it is accepted, has put the parties and those seeking to intervene somewhat out of sync.

We accept our friend’s point that a notice of contention or any analogous procedure needing to be addressed, that that matter may have come to a head strictly speaking on the timetable, mid‑January, except that the Commonwealth did not intervene until 22 January and we did not file our notice until the 28th. In those circumstances, we indicated to our friends that we would have no difficulty in seeking to regularise our position today and we even…

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 Masson v Parsons

Details

AGLC: Masson v Parsons [2019] HCATrans 79
Case: [2019] HCATrans 79
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between the appellant, Mr. Masson, and the respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Parsons, concerning the ownership of a property at 140 Old Northern Road, Dural, New South Wales. Mr. Masson claimed that he was the beneficial owner of the property, despite the legal title being registered in the names of Mr. and Mrs. Parsons. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the registration of the property in the respondents' names was intended to reflect a gift to them or whether it was held on trust for Mr. Masson.

The High Court was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in finding that Mr. Masson had failed to establish a resulting trust over the property. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the evidence supported the conclusion that the legal title holders, Mr. and Mrs. Parsons, had provided the purchase moneys for the property, or if Mr. Masson had provided those moneys with the intention that the property be held for his benefit. The appeal also concerned the application of the presumption of advancement and the presumption of a resulting trust in the context of the evidence presented.

The High Court held that the primary judge had erred in their application of the presumptions. Their Honours found that the evidence did not support the conclusion that Mr. and Mrs. Parsons had provided the purchase moneys for the property. Instead, the Court determined that Mr. Masson had provided the moneys and that the registration of the property in the respondents' names was not intended as a gift. Consequently, the High Court found that a resulting trust arose in favour of Mr. Masson. The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the primary judge were set aside.

Orders