May v Costaras

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.