McDERMOTT -v- McDERMOTT [2001] WASC 184
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASC 184 | |
| Case No: | CIV:1272/2000 | 18 MAY 2001 | |
| Coram: | PIDGEON AUJ | 18/05/01 | |
| 7 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Judgment for the plaintiff | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BRADLEY COLIN McDERMOTT BETTY DOROTHEA MAY McDERMOTT |
Catchwords: | Real property Trusts Gifts Money paid in reduction of mortgage by a person not the owner Whether a gift Whether an interest created Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Nil Bull v Bull [1955] 1 QB 234 Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242 Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 161 ALR 473 Robinson v Preston 70 ER 211 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Plaintiff
AND
BETTY DOROTHEA MAY McDERMOTT
Defendant
Catchwords:
Real property - Trusts - Gifts - Money paid in reduction of mortgage by a person not the owner - Whether a gift - Whether an interest created - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Judgment for the plaintiff
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr A D M Lindsay
Defendant : Mr K E Yin
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : R E Purvis & Co
Defendant : Leask & Co
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
Case(s) also cited:
Bull v Bull [1955] 1 QB 234
Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242
Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 161 ALR 473
Robinson v Preston 70 ER 211
(Page 3)
1 PIDGEON AUJ : I find this one of the sadder cases to judge by reason of a family being divided. Counsel has commented on that. It is sad to see this happening. I have had the picture here of a mother, Mrs McDermott, who impressed me as a very honest woman doing her best to recall what happened and it would be difficult for anyone in these circumstances to recall what happened. She has brought up a large family of nine children, under difficult circumstances. I did see the word "battling" in the evidence and I think that is right. So the circumstances are very sad, but I am satisfied on what I have heard today that the law does give some trust, some interest in the land, to the plaintiff and I will give my reasons for reaching that view.
2 The family was residing in a State Housing Commission house at Hilton. As I said, the family was Mrs McDermott, the defendant, and the large family that she brought up. Many of the family, when in work, put in the money to run the house. One of the members of the family was the plaintiff Bradley. He was born on 30 August 1960. He left school at the age of 15 years or so and for 3 years he said he had some work, the…
Details
- AGLC
- McDermott v McDermott [2001] WASC 184
- Case
- [2001] WASC 184
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of McDermott v McDermott, the Supreme Court of Western Australia was called upon to determine the equitable interests of the parties in a property following a series of financial contributions made by the plaintiff, Bradley Colin McDermott, to facilitate the purchase of the property from the State Housing Commission. The central legal issue was whether the contributions made by Bradley constituted a gift to his mother, Betty Dorothea May McDermott, or whether they created a resulting trust in his favor. The court was required to examine the circumstances surrounding the contributions, including a statutory declaration signed by Bradley and his subsequent payments towards the mortgage.
The court considered the principles of equity and resulting trusts, noting that there is no presumption of advancement when a child pays money to a parent to purchase land. Instead, a resulting trust arises in favor of the person who provided the funds, which can be rebutted if there is clear evidence of an intention to make an unconditional gift. The court held that while Bradley's statutory declaration indicated a gift, the overall context of the contributions and payments made by Bradley suggested an intention to retain some interest in the property. The court found that Bradley had an equitable interest in the property, proportionate to his contributions, which would vest upon the death of Betty.
The final orders of the court recognised Bradley's equitable interest in the property, apportioned at a ratio of 1:3, with the interest expectant on the death of Betty. The decision highlighted the importance of examining the specific facts and intentions of the parties in determining the nature of financial contributions in family property disputes.
The court considered the principles of equity and resulting trusts, noting that there is no presumption of advancement when a child pays money to a parent to purchase land. Instead, a resulting trust arises in favor of the person who provided the funds, which can be rebutted if there is clear evidence of an intention to make an unconditional gift. The court held that while Bradley's statutory declaration indicated a gift, the overall context of the contributions and payments made by Bradley suggested an intention to retain some interest in the property. The court found that Bradley had an equitable interest in the property, proportionate to his contributions, which would vest upon the death of Betty.
The final orders of the court recognised Bradley's equitable interest in the property, apportioned at a ratio of 1:3, with the interest expectant on the death of Betty. The decision highlighted the importance of examining the specific facts and intentions of the parties in determining the nature of financial contributions in family property disputes.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.