Rix v Mahony (No 2)

Case [2012] NSWCA 332


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rix v Mahony (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 332
Hearing dates:30 July 2012
Decision date: 17 October 2012
Before: Campbell JA at [1];
Meagher JA at [2];
Barrett JA at [30].
Decision:

(1) Appellant's notice of motion filed on 18 July 2012 dismissed.

(2) Appeal dismissed.

(3) Appellant pay the costs of the first and fifth respondents of the appeal and of that notice of motion.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: REAL PROPERTY - transfer of land from parents to daughter and son-in-law for no consideration - whether daughter held one-half share on trust for parents as joint tenants - parents living apart - no intention to hold jointly
Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919
Cases Cited: Abela v Public Trustee [1983] 1 NSWLR 308
Delehunt v Carmody [1986] HCA 67; 161 CLR 464
DKLR Holding Co (No 2) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) [1982] HCA 14; 149 CLR 431
Newcastle City Council v Kern Land Pty Ltd (1997) 42 NSWLR 273
Rix v Mahony [2009] NSWSC 675
Rix v Mahony [2011] NSWSC 1308
Rix v Mahony [2012] NSWCA 241
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Frederick George Rix (Appellant)
Lisa Jane Mahony (First Respondent)
Mark Edward Rix (Second Respondent)
Malcolm George Brown (Third Respondent)
Romano di Donato (Fourth Respondent)
Dennis Anthony Mahony (Fifth Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Self-represented (Appellant)
Mr G R Kennett SC, Ms F Ramsay (First and Fifth Respondents)
No appearance (Second, Third and Fourth Respondents)
Solicitors:
Self-represented (Appellant)
Paul Wells & Co (First and Fifth Respondents)
File Number(s):2011/86859
 Decision under appeal 
Citation:
[2011] NSWSC 1308
Date of Decision:
2011-11-02 00:00:00
Before:
Bergin CJ in Eq
File Number(s):
2011/86859

Judgment

  1. CAMPBELL JA: I agree with Meagher JA.

  1. MEAGHER JA: On 28 July 2011 a property in Gardeners Road, Rosebery was sold pursuant to an order under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919. That order was made by Forster J in proceedings to which the appellant was a party: Rix v Mahony [2009] NSWSC 675. The registered proprietors of the property were the appellant's daughter, the first respondent, as to a three-quarter share, and her husband, the fifth respondent, as to a one-quarter share.

  1. The appellant claimed to be entitled to 50 per cent of the gross proceeds of that sale on the basis that the first respondent had held a one-half share in the property on trust for the appellant and his wife (Mrs Rix) as joint tenants. As Mrs Rix had died in October 2010, at the time of the sale the first respondent held…

Continue reading Rix v Mahony (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rix v Mahony (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 332
Case
[2012] NSWCA 332
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Rix v Mahony (No 2)* concerned a dispute over the beneficial ownership of land transferred from parents to their daughter and son-in-law without consideration. The parents, who were living apart at the time of the transfer, sought to establish that their daughter held a one-half share of the property on trust for them as joint tenants. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, comprising Campbell, Meagher and Barrett JJA.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the parents had retained a beneficial interest in the property, specifically whether their daughter held her half-share on trust for them as joint tenants. This required the court to consider the intention of the parties at the time of the transfer, particularly in light of the parents' separation and the absence of consideration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the primary judge's decision. Their Honours reasoned that the transfer of the property to the daughter and son-in-law, without consideration, did not create a trust in favour of the parents as joint tenants. The court found that there was no evidence to suggest an intention by the parents to retain a beneficial interest in the property as joint tenants, especially given their separation at the time of the transfer. The legal principles applied focused on the requirement for clear evidence of intention to create a trust, particularly where the purported beneficiaries were not the registered proprietors. The court concluded that the parents had not established the necessary intention for their daughter to hold her share on trust for them as joint tenants.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the first and fifth respondents.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Appellant's notice of motion filed on 18 July 2012 dismissed.

(2) Appeal dismissed.

(3) Appellant pay the costs of the first and fifth respondents of the appeal and of that notice of motion.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.