Rush v Keogh

Rush v Keogh involved a dispute between the parties over the application of a constructive trust in relation to a property that was subject to a life estate. The property was mortgaged, and the life tenant had paid both the principal and interest due under the mortgage. The dispute centred on whether a constructive trust should be imposed based on the payments made by the life tenant, and if so, to what extent. The case was heard in the court, which had to determine the principles that should guide the application of a constructive trust in this context.

The court had to decide whether the remedy of a constructive trust could be applied based on the conduct of the parties, specifically whether a triggering mechanism was necessary or if it was sufficient to demonstrate unconscionable conduct. The court considered whether the life tenant's payments constituted a sufficient basis for imposing a constructive trust, and if the extent of the trust should be proportionate to the contributions made. The court was also required to examine the appropriate proportion of the property to which the constructive trust should apply.

In its reasoning, the court found that a constructive trust was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. It held that the life tenant's payments of the principal and interest on the mortgage were sufficient to trigger the imposition of a constructive trust, without the need for a specific triggering mechanism. The court concluded that the life tenant's conduct did not amount to unconscionable behaviour, but the contributions made warranted a remedy. The court found that a constructive trust should be imposed as to 45% of the subject property, reflecting the proportion of the contributions made by the life tenant. The decision underscored the principles guiding the application of constructive trusts and the importance of proportionality in such remedies.