Raams v Ainsley-Squires - [2023] NSWSC 1236

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Raams v Ainsley-Squires [2023] NSWSC 1236
Hearing dates: 11 & 12 October 2023
Date of orders: 23 October 2023
Decision date: 23 October 2023
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
The plaintiff is ordered to pay to the plaintiff 20% of the net proceeds of sale of the Werrington Downs property, subject to adjustments for the plaintiff’s defaults. The plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis. Directions made to deal with any application for an accounting between the parties, for a special costs order and for the making of orders for a specified gross sum instead of assessed costs under Civil Procedure Act2005, s 98(4)(c).

Catchwords:
TRUSTS – constructive trust – plaintiff and defendant jointly acquire real property as tenants-in-common – the certificate of title records the parties, as registered proprietors in the name of the plaintiff as to 80% and the defendant as to 20% – the plaintiff claims that pursuant to an agreement to acquire the property the defendant held her 20% interest in the property as registered proprietor on constructive trust for him, in exchange for him providing her $20,000 to undertake some dental work she was planning – the defendant contends that the plaintiff agreed to give her a beneficial interest in the property commensurate with the legal interest – what were the terms of the agreement made between the parties – whether the defendant holds her 20% legal interest in the property on constructive trust for the plaintiff – property sold – defendant cross claims for 20% of the net proceeds of sale of the property.

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act2005 s 98(4)(c)
Civil Procedure Act 2005, ss 57-60

Cases Cited:
Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375
Harrison v Schipp (2002) 54 NSWLR 738
Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 99

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff/Cross Defendant: Richard Raams
Defendant/Cross Claimant: Alexandra Ainsley-Squires
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff/Cross Defendant: S. J. Burchett
Defendant/Cross Claimant: D. Meyerowitz-Katz
Solicitors:
Plaintiff/Cross Defendant: Mr C. Brown, SLF Lawyers
Defendant/Cross Claimant: Ms S. Eshaghi Gharagouz, Taylor & Scott Lawyers

File Number(s): 2023/00051844
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

In January 2013 Richard Raams and Alexandra Ainsley-Squires acquired residential real property in Werrington Downs in Western Sydney as tenants-in-common. The certificate of title recorded them as registered proprietors in the proportions 80 (Mr Raams):20 (Ms Ainsley-Squires). Mr Raams says that Ms Ainsley-Squires holds her 20% interest as registered proprietor of the property on trust for him. Ms Ainsley-Squires says that their legal ownership of the property accurately reflects their beneficial ownership of the property. The property has since been sold. Mr Raams now seeks a declaration he is entitled to the whole the proceeds of sale. In contrast Ms Ainsley-Squires claims 20% of the net sale proceeds.
They agree on some matters: Mr Raams had insufficient funds to borrow money to purchase the Werrington Downs property on his own; Ms…

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 Raams v Ainsley-Squires 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: [2023] NSWSC 1236
Decision Date: 23 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was between Raams and Ainsley-Squires, in which the plaintiff sought to establish a constructive trust over a parcel of real property that was held jointly by both parties. The property was acquired by the parties as tenants-in-common, with the plaintiff owning an 80% interest and the defendant holding a 20% interest as recorded in the certificate of title. The plaintiff contended that the defendant held her interest on trust for him as per an agreement between them, in exchange for him providing her with a $20,000 loan for dental work. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had agreed to provide her with a beneficial interest in the property equivalent to the legal interest.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the agreement made between the parties regarding the ownership of the property. The court had to determine whether the defendant held her 20% interest in the property on trust for the plaintiff, as claimed, or whether the defendant was entitled to a beneficial interest in the property commensurate with her legal interest. The court had to consider the evidence presented by both parties and assess the nature and terms of the agreement made between them. The court also had to consider whether the property had been sold and, if so, whether the defendant was entitled to a 20% share of the net proceeds of sale.

The court found that the evidence presented by both parties was insufficient to determine the terms of the agreement made between them. The court held that there was no clear and unequivocal agreement between the parties regarding the ownership of the property. The court also found that the defendant had not acted dishonestly or unconscionably in retaining her interest in the property. As such, the court held that the defendant did not hold her interest in the property on trust for the plaintiff. The court also found that the property had been sold, and the defendant was entitled to a 20% share of the net proceeds of sale. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant her share of the net proceeds of sale.

Orders