Repatriation Commission v Tsourounakis

Case [2004] FCAFC 332

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Repatriation Commission v Tsourounakis [2004] FCAFC 332

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS – age service pension – reduction for assets – whether respondents had effectively alienated beneficial ownership of real property in favour of their son where no transfer of legal title – whether proprietary estoppel in circumstances where son made substantial improvements to the property

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), ss 5L(1), (2), (3), 36A(2), 36N, 57, 57B(1), (2), 52C(1),
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), ss 43(2), 44
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), ss 11 and 200

Dillwyn v Llewelyn (1862) 45 ER 1285 cited
Ramsden v Dyson (1866) LR 1 E&IA 129 cited
Dinyarrak Investments Pty Ltd v Amoco Australia Ltd (1982) 45 ALR 214 cited
Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101 cited
Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 304 cited

REPATRIATION COMMISSION v EMMANOUIL & VASILIKI TSOUROUNAKIS

Q75 OF 2004

SPENDER, KIEFEL & EMMETT JJ
20 DECEMBER 2004
BRISBANE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q75 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY DEPUTY PRESIDENT MULLER

BETWEEN:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION
APPLICANT

AND:

EMMANOUIL AND VASILIKI TSOUROUNAKIS
RESPONDENTS

JUDGES:

SPENDER, KIEFEL & EMMETT JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

20 DECEMBER 2004

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be upheld.

2.The orders of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of 18 March 2004 be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration according to law.

AND THE COURT NOTES:

3.The agreement of the parties that the Commission pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q75 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY DEPUTY PRESIDENT MULLER

BETWEEN:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION
APPLICANT

AND:

EMMANOUIL AND VASILIKI TSOUROUNAKIS
RESPONDENTS

JUDGES:

SPENDER, KIEFEL & EMMETT JJ

DATE:

20 DECEMBER 2004

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. This appeal concerns the question of whether the respondents, Emmanouil and Vasiliki Tsourounakis (‘Mr and Mrs Tsourounakis’), are the beneficial owners, free of any encumbrance or claim, of a Brisbane suburban property situated at 16 Ganges Street, West End (‘the Property’).  The question arises in the context of determining the entitlement of Mr and Mrs Tsourounakis to a service pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (‘the Act’). Mr and Mrs Tsourounakis claim that they have effectively alienated the whole or a substantial part of the beneficial ownership of the Property in favour of their son, Michael Tsourounakis (‘Michael’). The applicant, the Repatriation Commission (‘the Commission’), on the other hand, asserts that Mr and Mrs Tsourounakis are the beneficial owners of the Property, free of any encumbrance or claim.

    STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

  2. Under s 36 of the Act, a person is entitled to an age service pension if the person is a veteran who has rendered qualifying service and has reached retirement age.…

Continue reading Repatriation Commission v Tsourounakis

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Repatriation Commission v Tsourounakis [2004] FCAFC 332
Case
[2004] FCAFC 332
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Repatriation Commission, as the appellant, filed an appeal against the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which was in favor of Mr and Mrs Tsourounakis, the respondents. The dispute centred around the valuation of an asset, specifically a property, owned by Mr and Mrs Tsourounakis, and the impact this valuation had on the pension entitlements of Mr Tsourounakis under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth). The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the correct legal principles to apply when assessing the value of jointly owned property for pension assessment purposes.

The central legal issue before the Court was the appropriate method to value the property owned by Mr and Mrs Tsourounakis for the purpose of determining Mr Tsourounakis' pension entitlement. The Court needed to decide whether the full market value of the property should be attributed to Mr Tsourounakis, or if a lesser value should be assigned due to the nature of the ownership and occupation arrangement. The Court also had to consider the contributions and improvements made by Mr and Mrs Tsourounakis' son, Michael, and his wife, Mary, to the property, and the circumstances under which they had come to occupy it.

The Court held that the AAT had erred in its approach to valuing the property. It was necessary to consider the contributions made by Michael and Mary in renovating and improving the property, and the understanding between Mr Tsourounakis and Michael that the property would eventually be transferred to Michael. The Court found that the AAT had failed to give proper weight to these factors. As a result, the Court set aside the AAT's decision and remitted the matter back to the AAT for reconsideration, according to law, in light of these reasons. The Court also noted the agreement of the parties that the Commission should pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Court's decision clarified the principles to be applied when valuing jointly owned property for pension assessment purposes. It emphasised the need to consider the contributions and understandings of the parties involved in the occupation and improvement of the property. The case highlights the importance of a comprehensive and nuanced approach when determining the value of assets in pension assessment cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be upheld.

2. The orders of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of 18 March 2004 be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration according to law.

AND THE COURT NOTES:

3. The agreement of the parties that the Commission pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

The effect of those provisions is that, in order to determine the rate of pension to which Mr Tsourounakis is entitled, if any, it is necessary to arrive at a value of his interest in any assets, including assets that he and Mrs Tsourounakis own jointly. BACKGROUND FACTS The Tribunal accepted that the witnesses who gave evidence on behalf of Mr and Mrs Tsourounakis were witnesses of truth and should be believed. The Tribunal had evidence from Mr and Mrs Tsourounakis, Michael Tsourounakis(‘Michael’), Mary Tsourounakis (‘Mary’), who is Michael’s wife and Mr William Carter, who is Mary’s father. All gave evidence as to the circumstances in which Michael and Mary became the occupants of the Property and expended time, energy and money on its renovation and improvement. Mr and Mrs Tsourounakis bought the Property in about 1966. Since then, they have at all times been the registered owners, as joint tenants, of an estate in fee simple in the Property. The Property was originally their family home but, at some time before 1991, it ceased to be their home, when it was let to tenants at arms length. In 1990, Michael had an interest in a company that manufactured sauce. In 1991 the business of the company failed with substantial unpaid liabilities. Michael had given a guarantee in respect of certain of those liabilities and had granted security over his family home in respect of the liabilities. When the business failed, Michael was left to deal with the creditors alone. In order to meet his obligations, he sold his family home with the hope of avoiding bankruptcy. At about that time in 1991, Mr Tsourounakis told Michael that he knew that Michael was having trouble finding somewhere to live, having sold his family home and that, since the Property would one day be Michael’s anyway, he thought there was no reason not to give it to Michael then. Mr Tsourounakis told Michael that it was intended that the Property would be left to Michael in his will. Mr Tsourounakis suggested that Michael move into the house on the Property and that he consider it as his own to do with as he wished. Mr Tsourounakis said that the Property was very run down and would need a lot of repairs. There was a discussion between Mr Tsourounakis and Michael to the effect that the Property could not be transferred into Michael’s name because his creditors would then simply take it to pay off his liabilities and his family would again be left without a place to live. Michael said that the arrangement was that Mr and Mrs Tsourounakis would retain title until Michael had emerged from his financial difficulties and he was in a position to have the Property transferred to him. Mr Tsourounakis referred to the arrangement as ‘helping the family out’. Michael confirmed that Mr Tsourounakis said that he did not want any money for the Property and that Michael should treat it as his own. Michael and Mary moved into the property in 1991 and have remained in possession ever since, although there were times when they could not live in the house on the Property because of building works. When they moved in, the Property was in a state of complete disrepair. It was in such bad condition that Mary and Michael had to begin immediately to make renovations. Detailed evidence was given of the improvements that they made and the costs incurred in doing so. No arrangement was made to pay rent for occupation of the property and none was ever paid. However, from 1991, Michael has paid all rates and other outgoings in respect of the Property.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In circumstances where Michael and his family have treated the Property as their home for more than 13 years and have incurred expenditure that has increased its value to a very significant degree, it may be that the only appropriate order is to treat Michael as having an entitlement to remain in possession of the Property for the lifetime of the survivor of his parents and to be given the property by testamentary devise by the survivor. Such a conclusion may mean that the value of the interest of Mr and Mrs Tsourounakis in the Property would be very close to nil. On the other hand, it may be significant that, in his letter to the Commission of 15 November 2002, Michael asserted that his parents still had a net equity in the Property of $200,000. The appropriate diminution in the value of the interest of Mr and Mrs Tsourounakis would be a matter for the Tribunal. CONCLUSION The appeal must be upheld. The orders of the Tribunal must be set aside and the matter must be remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration according to law in accordance with these reasons. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, the Commission should pay the costs of Mr and Mrs Tsourounakis.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.