Mendonca v Tonna

The appeal concerned a dispute between Mr. Mendonca (the appellant) and Mr. and Mrs. Tonna (the respondents) regarding the beneficial ownership of a property. The primary judge had found that the appellant had not rebutted the presumption of a resulting trust in favour of the respondents, despite the appellant having contributed funds towards the purchase of the property. The appellant also contended that the primary judge erred in not being satisfied that a residential tenancy agreement existed, as the genuineness of a signature on the final page of the document was disputed.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the presumption of a resulting trust was not rebutted by the appellant. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the primary judge was correct in not being satisfied that a residential tenancy agreement had been created, given the dispute over the signature. Finally, the court was asked to consider whether the primary judge’s costs order, which generally followed the event, was a proper exercise of discretion, particularly in relation to discrete and separable issues.

The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge’s findings. Regarding the resulting trust, the court found no error in the primary judge’s assessment that the appellant had failed to rebut the presumption. The court also agreed with the primary judge’s conclusion that the evidence did not establish the existence of a residential tenancy agreement. Consequently, the court dismissed the appellant’s amended notice of motion and the appeal, ordering the appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.