Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: May v Costaras [2025] NSWCA 178 Hearing dates: 30 July 2025 Date of orders: 8 August 2025 Decision date: 08 August 2025 Before: Bell CJ at [1];
Payne JA at [18];
McHugh JA at [95]Decision: (1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs.
Catchwords: EQUITY — Trusts — Resulting trust - whether primary judge wrongly failed to apply presumption that appellant did not intend respondent to obtain beneficial interest in property – whether respondent’s legal interest subject to purchase money resulting trust
EQUITY — Trusts — Constructive trust — joint endeavour constructive trust — de facto relationship — relationship broken down —investment property purchased in co-ownership as joint tenants — whether primary judge erred in characterising scope of the joint endeavour — whether the primary judge erred in determining beneficial entitlements of two thirds for appellant and one third for respondent — whether appellant entitled to larger beneficial interest
APPEALS — From finding of fact — Documentary evidence — text messages between the appellant and respondent — whether primary judge erred in making factual findings having regard to contemporaneous written records
APPEALS — From finding of fact — Credibility of witnesses — whether primary judge erred in assessing respondent’s credit
UNREPRESENTED LITIGANTS – Use of Generative AI – Hallucinated case reference – irrelevant case references – where Generative AI used to prepare script for oral submissions – where oral submissions so generated misconceived or irrelevant
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedural Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Ayinde v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin)
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137; [1987] HCA 59
Burragubba v State of Queensland (2016) 151 ALD 471; [2016] FCA 984
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22
Joudo v Joudo [2024] NSWCA 258
Lee v Lee (2019) 266 CLR 129; [2019] HCA 28
Mohareb v Saratoga Marine Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 235
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583; [1985] HCA 78
Olsen v Finansiel Stabilitet A/S [2025] EWHC 42Vernon v Bosley (No 2) [1999] QB 18
Zzaman v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2025] UKFTT 00539
Texts Cited: Jacobs’ Law of Trusts in Australia (5th ed, Butterworths)
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Michael May (Appellant)
Lily Costaras (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
B Phillips (Appellant)
Self-represented (Respondent)
Proctor Phair Lawyers (Appellant)
Self-represented (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2025/129141 Publication restriction: None Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 25 February 2025
- Before:
- Lindsay J
- File Number(s):
- 2022/321875
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
This matter concerns an investment property in Scott Street in Maryborough in Queensland (the “Scott Street property”), which is owned by the appellant, Michael May, and the respondent, Lila Costaras, as joint tenants.
The parties met in November 2020. They resided in the respondent’s rented Eastwood residence from about 10 January…
Continue reading May v Costaras
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- May v Costaras [2025] NSWCA 178
- Case
- [2025] NSWCA 178
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in assessing the evidence, including contemporaneous written records such as text messages, and in evaluating the credibility of the respondent. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the presumption of a resulting trust applied, and if so, whether it had been rebutted. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the primary judge correctly characterised the joint endeavour and determined the respective beneficial entitlements of the parties to the investment property. The court also noted the appellant's use of generative AI in preparing submissions, which resulted in irrelevant and misconceived case references.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the primary judge's findings. The court found no error in the primary judge's assessment of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses. The presumption of a resulting trust was considered and found to have been rebutted by the evidence, which pointed towards a joint endeavour to acquire and hold the property for their mutual benefit. The court affirmed the primary judge's characterisation of the scope of this joint endeavour and the resulting determination of beneficial entitlements.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs.
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.