Legal Research
Cases
May v Costaras

May v Costaras

Case [2025] NSWSC 90 25 February 2025

Constructive Trust

Joint Venture

De Facto Relationship

Trusts & Equity

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: May v Costaras [2025] NSWSC 90
Hearing dates: 30 and 31 July; 1 August; and 26 September 2024
Decision date: 25 February 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Lindsay J
Decision:
DECLARE that the Scott Street property is held on trust by the parties in the proportions of two thirds for the plaintiff and one third for the defendant.

Catchwords:
EQUITY – Trusts – Constructive trust – Joint endeavour – De facto relationship – Breakdown in relationship – Investment property – Purchased in co-ownership as joint tenants – nature and scope of joint endeavour – Determination of beneficial entitlements

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995
Interpretation Act 1987 NSW
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 NSW
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 Qld
Property (Relationships) Act 1984 NSW

Cases Cited:
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Bridgewater v Leahy (1998) 194 CLR 457
Delaforce v Simpson-Cook (2010) 78 NSWLR 483
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Jobson v Beckingham [1983] Fam LR 169
Kramer v Stone [2024] HCA 48
Mahoney v Lindsay (1980) 33 ALR 601
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583
Peter Turnbull Pty Ltd v Mundus Trading Co (Australasia) Pty Ltd (1954) 90 CLR 235
Vadasz v Pioneer Concrete (SA) Pty Ltd (1995) 184 CLR 102

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff: Michael Albert Robert May
Defendant: Lila Rasa Costaras
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff: B Phillips
Defendant: Self represented
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Proctor Phair Lawyers

File Number(s): 2022/00321875

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

As joint tenants, the plaintiff and the defendant are registered as proprietors of a property known as 9 Scott Street, Maryborough in the State of Queensland, being Lot 2 in Registered Plan 3893 and the whole of the land contained in Certificate of Title 13485053.
The plaintiff claims that the defendant holds her interest in the property on trust for him, in essence, because, he says:

he purchased the property in their joint names only because they were at that time engaged to be married and her registration on the title was (he says, expressly) conditional upon a marriage that did not occur, albeit that he (not she) terminated their relationship as a couple; and

the Court should disregard, as an incident of their relationship:

her earlier contribution to the renovation of another property held in his name (located at 13-15 Water Ski Parade, Cumberland Reach in the State of New South Wales); and

her involvement in the process of purchasing the Scott Street property, he (not she) having paid the whole of the purchase price of the Scott Street property and the associated costs of acquisition.

The defendant contends that:

as an incident of the parties’ relationship the Scott Street property was purchased in co-ownership, in fact, because of the parties’ common intention that the property serve as an investment for both of them, her contribution to renovation of the Cumberland Reach property, her involvement in the process of purchasing the Scott Street property and in recognition that the parties were, in…

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 May v Costaras

Details

AGLC: May v Costaras [2025] NSWSC 90
Case: [2025] NSWSC 90
Decision Date: 25 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of May v Costaras involved the parties, May and Costaras, who were in a de facto relationship. The dispute arose when the relationship broke down, and the question of their respective beneficial entitlements in an investment property, which they had purchased jointly, needed to be determined. The property was held as joint tenants. The court had to decide on the nature and scope of the joint endeavour and the beneficial entitlements of the parties. This case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the nature and scope of the joint endeavour between the parties and to ascertain their respective beneficial entitlements in the investment property. The court had to consider whether the parties had a common intention to share the property's benefits and burdens and to what extent they had contributed to the acquisition and maintenance of the property. Additionally, the court examined whether the parties had entered into a joint endeavour that gave rise to a constructive trust.

The court found that the parties had a joint endeavour to acquire and maintain the property as an investment. It was held that the parties had a common intention to share the benefits and burdens of the property. The court also found that the contributions of the parties, both financial and otherwise, were significant and that their relationship was more than just a mere domestic partnership. The court concluded that the parties had entered into a joint endeavour that gave rise to a constructive trust, and the property should be divided between them in equal shares. This decision was based on the equitable principles of joint endeavour and constructive trust.

The court ordered that the property be sold and the proceeds be divided equally between the parties. The court held that the parties' joint endeavour and the equitable principles of constructive trust entitled each party to an equal share of the beneficial interests in the property. This outcome reflected the court's recognition of the significant contributions made by both parties to the acquisition and maintenance of the property.

Orders