May v Costaras

Case [2025] NSWCA 178


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:
B Phillips (Appellant)
Self-represented (Respondent)

Solicitors:
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:

[2025] NSWSC 90

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

Details
AGLC
May v Costaras [2025] NSWCA 178
Case
[2025] NSWCA 178
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *May v Costaras* concerned a dispute over beneficial entitlements to an investment property purchased during a de facto relationship. The appellant, Ms. May, argued that the primary judge had wrongly failed to apply the presumption of a resulting trust in her favour, and that the respondent, Mr. Costaras, held his legal interest subject to such a trust. The appellant also contended that the primary judge erred in characterising the scope of the joint endeavour and in determining the beneficial entitlements as two-thirds for the appellant and one-third for the respondent, submitting she was entitled to a larger beneficial interest.

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.