Miller v Dudman - [2002] WASC 99

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: MILLER -v- DUDMAN [2002] WASC 99

CORAM: HASLUCK J

HEARD: 4 & 5 APRIL 2002

DELIVERED : 3 MAY 2002

FILE NO/S: CIV 1494 of 2001

BETWEEN: SUSAN FRANCES MILLER
Plaintiff
AND
PETER JAMES DUDMAN
Defendant

Catchwords:

Property Law - Claim for partition or sale of land - subject land purchased in course of defacto relationship - Funds provided exclusively by man - Whether evidence sufficient to rebut presumption of resulting trust - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Property Law Act, Part XIV s 126

Result:

Judgment for plaintiff

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr J C Curthoys
Defendant: In person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Kaeser Kroon
Defendant: In person

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242
Carkeek v Tate‑Jones [1971] VR 691
Charles Marshall Pty Ltd v Grimsley (1956) 95 CLR 353
Martin‑Smith v Woodhead [1990] WAR 62
Napier v Public Trustee (WA) (1980) 32 ALR 153
Russell v Scott (1936) 55 CLR 440
Shephard v Cartwright [1955] AC 431

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

HASLUCK J: The plaintiff and the defendant are the registered proprietors as joint tenants of an estate in fee simple of land known as 117 King Road, Bunbury ("the land"). The land in question was acquired in the course of a de facto relationship in which the parties lived together as man and wife for many years. Now that the relationship has ended the plaintiff, Susan Frances Miller, has applied to the Supreme Court for relief pursuant to certain provisions of the Property Law Act 1969 which allow for the partition or sale of jointly owned property.
The defendant, Peter James Dudman, says that the land was acquired with funds provided by him exclusively. Thus, a central issue in the case is whether the land is subject to a resulting trust in favour of the defendant.

Property Law Act

Part XIV of the Property Law Act deals with the partition of land and division of chattels. Section 126 of the Act provides that where in an action for partition the party interested to the extent of a half share or upwards in the subject land requests the Court to direct a sale of the land and a distribution of the proceeds, instead of a division of the land between the parties interested, the Court shall, unless it sees good reason to the contrary, direct a sale accordingly.
I note that the plaintiff's prayer for relief seeks an order that the land be partitioned. It follows that the threshold requirement of s 126 has been satisfied in that relief is sought in an action for partition. However, it is apparent from the statement of claim and from the way in which the case was presented at trial that the plaintiff essentially seeks an order that the land be sold by public auction free from encumbrances. She seeks also various orders and directions that will facilitate a sale and a subsequent distribution…

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 Miller v Dudman

Details

AGLC: Miller v Dudman [2002] WASC 99
Case: [2002] WASC 99
Decision Date: 3 MAY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a claim by the plaintiff, Miller, for either partition or sale of a property jointly owned with the defendant, Dudman. The property in question was purchased during the course of their defacto relationship, with all the funds provided by Miller. The dispute centred on whether Miller could successfully rebut the presumption of a resulting trust that arose from the exclusive contribution of funds towards the property purchase. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the evidence presented by Miller was sufficient to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust. A resulting trust arises when a person contributes exclusively to the purchase of property, leading to a presumption that they hold the property on trust for themselves. The court had to determine whether the evidence of the defacto relationship and any other contributions or agreements between Miller and Dudman were adequate to shift this presumption. This involved examining the nature of their relationship and any conduct that might indicate a different intention regarding the ownership of the property.

The court considered the nature of the defacto relationship between Miller and Dudman, along with the evidence presented regarding any agreements or contributions. It found that the evidence of the relationship and the conduct of the parties did not sufficiently rebut the presumption of a resulting trust. The court emphasised that the onus was on Miller to provide clear and convincing evidence that contradicted the presumption arising from the exclusive contribution of funds. Ultimately, the court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish a shared intention for equal ownership of the property. The court's reasoning was that the presumption of a resulting trust was not adequately rebutted by the circumstances presented.

The final orders of the court were that the property would remain in the sole name of Dudman. Miller's claim for partition or sale of the property was dismissed. The court also noted that the specific facts of the case, including the nature of the relationship and the evidence of any agreements, were crucial in determining the outcome. This decision highlights the importance of clear and convincing evidence in rebutting presumptions in property law matters involving defacto relationships.

Orders