Nguyen v Nguyen - [2019] NSWSC 131

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Nguyen v Nguyen [2019] NSWSC 131
Hearing dates: 12, 13, and 14 June 2018
Date of orders: 22 February 2019
Decision date: 22 February 2019
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
Declaration that the plaintiff holds a 40% equitable interest in the property. Directions given for the holding of a supplementary hearing for an accounting between the plaintiff and the defendant. Subject to any party applying for a special costs order the defendant will be ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the hearing.

Catchwords: REAL PROPERTY – resulting trust – constructive trust – oral agreement between plaintiff and defendant to purchase property – property purchased in name of defendant – plaintiff pays the deposit, stamp duty and a portion of the mortgage payments for the property – whether defendant holds the property as to a 40% interest on constructive trust for the plaintiff – whether the defendant holds the property legally and beneficially.
Cases Cited: Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Black Uhlans Incorporated v NSW Crime Commission [2002] NSWSC 1060
Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242
West v Mead [2003] NSWSC 161
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff: Thi Anh Thuy Nguyen
Defendant: Anh Tuan Nguyen
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff: B Zipser
Defendant: J Shaw
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Thi Truc Mai Dang, Integrity Legal Specialists
Defendant: Keith Wilson Ewart, F W Ewart & Ewart

File Number(s): 2015/151521
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

The plaintiff, Ms Thi Anh Thuy Nguyen, and the defendant, Dr Anh Tuan Nguyen, are siblings. They made an oral agreement in 2001 about the purchase of a property in Woodlands Road, Terrigal (“the Terrigal Property”). Soon afterwards, the Terrigal Property was purchased in Dr Nguyen’s name as registered proprietor.
Dr Nguyen contends that the parties agreed, at the time of its purchase, that he would be both the legal and beneficial owner of the Terrigal Property and that, after the purchase, he would rent the property to the plaintiff for $250 per week.
But Ms Nguyen contends they agreed that: they would purchase the Terrigal Property together as joint beneficial owners; and they would be equally responsible to repay loans used to fund the purchase of the property. She claims, in the alternative, that her brother holds the Terrigal Property on trust for her either: to an extent reflecting her financial contributions to the purchase and later improvement of the property; or on the basis of a later 2003 revised arrangement, in which she says it was mutually acknowledged that she would take a 40% interest in the property.
The hearing that commenced on 12 June 2018 dealt with the factual disputes between the parties about the nature of the siblings’ agreement, as to their ownership of the Terrigal Property. This judgment deals with those factual issues and the primary relief that follows their resolution. The Court has directed that a further hearing may need to take place to consider any further relief and a final accounting between the…

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 Nguyen v Nguyen

Details

AGLC: Nguyen v Nguyen [2019] NSWSC 131
Case: [2019] NSWSC 131
Decision Date: 22 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Nguyen v Nguyen, the parties involved were the plaintiff, Nguyen, and the defendant, Nguyen. The dispute centred around the ownership of a property that was purchased in the defendant's name. The plaintiff alleged that there was an oral agreement between the parties to purchase the property jointly, with the plaintiff contributing to the deposit, stamp duty, and mortgage payments. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the defendant held the property on a 40% interest on a constructive trust for the plaintiff, or alternatively, that the defendant held the property legally and beneficially. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether there was an oral agreement between the parties to purchase the property jointly, and if so, whether the plaintiff was entitled to a resulting or constructive trust over the property. The court also had to consider whether the defendant held the property legally and beneficially. The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and applied relevant legal principles to determine the outcome of the case.

The court found that there was an oral agreement between the parties to purchase the property jointly, with the plaintiff contributing to the deposit, stamp duty, and mortgage payments. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a resulting trust over 40% of the property, as the plaintiff had contributed to the purchase price. The court also found that the defendant held the property legally and beneficially. The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented and the application of relevant legal principles. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a resulting trust over 40% of the property, and the defendant held the property legally and beneficially.

The final orders of the court declared that the plaintiff held a 40% interest on a resulting trust over the property, and the defendant held the property legally and beneficially. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings. This outcome provided clarity for both parties regarding the ownership of the property and resolved the dispute between them.

Orders