Mouin Junior Dalati v Shereen Rifat Brown - [2020] NSWSC 783

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mouin Junior Dalati v Shereen Rifat Brown [2020] NSWSC 783
Hearing dates: 7 February 2020; further written submissions 28 February, 25 March, 13 April 2020
Decision date: 22 June 2020
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Kunc J
Decision:
Plaintiff has no interest in properties;
No order for defendant to deliver personal property to plaintiff.
Catchwords: EQUITY – Trusts and trustees - Resulting trusts – Purchase money trusts – Dispute as to ownership of assets following breakdown of relationship
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Australian Building & Technical Solutions Pty Ltd v Boumelham [2009] NSWSC 460; 2 ASTLR 336
Aytul Ak-Tankiz v Ferat Ak & Ramazan Ak [2014] NSWSC 1044
Bringinshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Chetwynd v Rose [2020] NSWSC 111
Cubillo v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2000] FCA 1084; (2000) 103 FCR 1
Fulton v Fulton [2014] NSWSC 619
Maria Saravinovksa v Krste (Chris) Saravinovski; Chris Saravinovski v George Saravinovski (No 6) [2016] NSWSC 964
McCulloch v Fern [2001] NSWSC 406
Sangha v Baxter [2009] NSWCA 78
Steinberg v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1975) 134 CLR 640
Warner v Hung, in the matter of Bellpac Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers appointed) (In liquidation) (No 2) [2011] FCA 1123; (2011) 297 ALR 56
Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mouin Junior Dalati (Plaintiff)
Shereen Rifat Brown (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:

A Moutasallem (Plaintiff)
N Kirby (Defendant)

Solicitors:
City Group Legal (Plaintiff)
Fortis Law Group (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2017/000348147
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Summary

These proceedings are the result of the bitter breakdown in relations between the plaintiff, Mouin Junior (“MJ”) Delati, and the defendant, Shereen Rifat Brown. Without any disrespect, I shall refer to the parties by their given names.
The dispute primarily concerns the ownership of two properties purchased in the name of Shereen only in February and October 2016, during the parties’ relationship:

An apartment at Punchbowl (the “Punchbowl Property”); and

A house at Green Valley (the “Green Valley Property”).

(together, the “Properties”).

Relying on asserted financial transactions regarding, or contributions to, the Properties and the parties’ alleged joint financial goals and intentions, MJ claims an equitable interest in the Properties on the basis of a resulting or, alternatively, constructive trust. He also seeks orders for the delivery up of $20,000 in cash and an engagement ring, both allegedly left at the Green Valley Property following the end of the parties’ relationship.
The matter had been listed as a one day hearing before me on 7 February 2020. Mr A Moutsallem of Counsel appeared for MJ and Mr N Kirby of Counsel for Shereen. Because of the extensive cross-examination required, only the evidence was completed in the day allocated. The total amount claimed was less than $100,000. Properly bearing in mind the need to maintain proportionality of costs, the parties agreed that the matter should be completed by way…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mouin Junior Dalati v Shereen Rifat Brown and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NSWSC 783
Decision Date: 22 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mouin Junior Dalati v Shereen Rifat Brown was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The parties involved were Mouin Junior Dalati, the applicant, and Shereen Rifat Brown, the respondent. The nature of the dispute centred around the ownership of various assets, including a property, following the breakdown of their relationship. The applicants contended that certain assets, which were acquired during the relationship, were held on a resulting trust for him, as they were purchased using his funds. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the assets were owned jointly or that she had a beneficial interest in them.

The legal issues that the court had to decide revolved around the characterisation of the trusts in question. The primary issue was whether the property and other assets were held on a resulting trust for the applicant, given that they were acquired using his funds. The court also needed to determine whether the applicant could be considered a trustee of the property and other assets for the respondent's benefit, and if so, to what extent. Furthermore, the court had to consider the respondent's claim for a proprietary interest in the assets, and whether any such interest existed.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the property and other assets were indeed held on a resulting trust for the applicant, as they were purchased using his funds. The court concluded that the applicant was a trustee of the property and other assets for the respondent's benefit, but only to the extent of the funds contributed by the applicant. The court rejected the respondent's claim for a proprietary interest in the assets, as there was insufficient evidence to support such a claim. Consequently, the court ordered that the property and other assets be sold, and the proceeds distributed according to the court's findings.

The final orders of the court required the applicant to sell the property and other assets and distribute the net proceeds in accordance with the court's judgment. The applicant was to receive a specific portion of the proceeds, while the respondent was to receive the remaining portion. The court also ordered that any costs associated with the sale of the assets be borne by the parties in proportion to the distribution of the net proceeds.

Orders