Legal Research
Cases
Read v Nicholls

Read v Nicholls

Case [2004] VSC 66 16 March 2004

Rights under Part IV of Administration and Probate Act 1958

Rights under Part IX of Real Property Act 1958

Constructive Trust

Succession Law

Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 6857 of 2002

KEVIN READ (as Executor of the will of ETHEL JUDY READ, deceased)	Plaintiff
v
ALICE CECILIA NICHOLLS (as Executrix of the will of KYRAN PATRICK NICHOLLS, deceased)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	NETTLE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26, 27 February, 1 March 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 March 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Read v Nicholls
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 66

---

Administration And Probate – Testator’s Family Maintenance – Survival of Actions – Rights under Part IV of Administration and Probate Act 1958 – Whether rights survive death of applicant – Administration and Probate Act 1958, s.91

Real Property – De facto partners – rights under Part IX of Real Property Act 1958 – Whether rights survive death of applicant – Property Law Act 1958, Part IX

Equity – Trusts – Constructive Trust – De facto partners – Unconscionable retention of benefit – Purchase of real property in name of man alone – Non financial contribution of de facto partner – whether constructive trust in favour of de facto partner.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Dr J. F. Bleechmore	David Wilkinson & Co
For the Defendant	Mr S. P. Newton	Clark & Toop

HIS HONOUR:

The facts

Ethel Judy Read (nee, Barker), deceased, was born on 26 October 1919. In 1939 she married George Graham Read and in the following eight years she bore him three children: Kevin George Read on 5 February 1943; Barbara Ann Holden (nee Read) on 6 November 1944; and Graham Edward Read on 5 March 1947. Thereafter until about 1958 she and George Read lived with their three children in rented premises at 34 Francis Street, Ferntree Gully.

George Read was a carpenter and in the course of his work he came in contact with Kyran Patrick Nicholls who was then a builders labourer. Kyran Nicholls was born in 1932 and so was about 13 years younger than George and Ethel Read, but it appears that he and George Read became friends and that at some time in or about 1958 George Read took Kyran Nicholls home for a drink and to introduce him to Ethel Read.

Ethel Read did not drink alcohol in those days and she would not allow others to drink it in the house. Therefore George Read and Kyran Nicholls and other friends did their drinking in a shed at the back of the house. But after a while Kyran Nicholls became attracted to Ethel Read and she to him and it may be because of the attraction that Ethel Read began to take a drink herself.

In or about 1959 George Read was convicted of theft and sent to prison. That left the way open for the development of a relationship between Kyran Nicholls and Ethel Read. There is a dispute about it on the evidence, but the weight of evidence is that Kyran Nicholls became…

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 Read v Nicholls

Details

AGLC: Read v Nicholls [2004] VSC 66
Case: [2004] VSC 66
Decision Date: 16 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Read v Nicholls, the dispute before the court revolved around the rights of a de facto partner concerning property purchased in the sole name of the other partner. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue was whether the rights under the Administration and Probate Act 1958 and the Real Property Act 1958 survived the death of the applicant, and whether a constructive trust could be imposed for the benefit of the de facto partner who made non-financial contributions towards the purchase of the property.

The court had to determine the applicability of sections 91 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 and Part IX of the Real Property Act 1958 to the situation where the applicant, who was seeking maintenance from the estate of the deceased partner, had passed away before the proceedings concluded. The court also needed to assess whether the de facto partner's non-financial contributions were sufficient to warrant the imposition of a constructive trust in their favour. The case hinged on the interpretation of the legislation and the principles of equity, specifically whether the de facto partner's contributions were significant enough to justify the recognition of their interest in the property.

The court held that the rights under the Administration and Probate Act 1958 and the Real Property Act 1958 did indeed survive the death of the applicant, allowing the proceedings to continue posthumously. The court found that the de facto partner's non-financial contributions, such as assisting in the maintenance of the property and contributing to the household, were substantial enough to warrant the imposition of a constructive trust. The court concluded that the de facto partner was entitled to an equitable interest in the property, reflecting the contributions made and the overall fairness of the situation. The court ordered that the property be held on constructive trust for the benefit of the de facto partner, recognising their significant involvement in the acquisition and maintenance of the property.

Orders