Access to some of the funds held in Court permitted - orders to be made following submissions as to regime for payment out.
Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for payment out of moneys presently held in Court in order to find legal expenses of criminal appeal proceedings and forfeiture proceedings - principles applicable on such an application where fund in Court represents moneys over which estate claims a resulting or constructive trust - HELD - order for access to part of the funds subject to provision of satisfactory costs estimates to be applied in priority to criminal appeal proceedings
EQUITY - resulting trusts - property held in joint title - unequal contributions to purchase price - applicant was jointly liable with deceased on mortgage agreement - OBITER - estate has seriously arguable claim for presumed resulting trust
EQUITY - presumption of advancement - the parties were in a de facto relationship at the time that the property was acquired - whether presumption applicable - OBITER - as stands on authority at present cannot assume that a presumption of advancement applies where parties were in a de facto relationship
FORFEITURE RULE - Forfeiture Act 1995 - property held in joint title by deceased and applicant - operation of right of survivorship - OBITER - estate has seriously arguable claim that applicant holds deceased's half interest on constructive trust for the deceased's estate due to forfeiture rule
[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 Ryan v Ryan
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Ryan v Ryan [2012] NSWSC 636
Case
[2012] NSWSC 636
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Ryan v Ryan involved the applicant, Ryan, seeking access to funds held in court to cover the costs of a criminal appeal and forfeiture proceedings. The deceased, who was Ryan's partner, had left behind a joint property, the proceeds of which were held by the court. The applicant sought an order to use part of these funds to cover legal expenses for the criminal appeal and forfeiture proceedings. The primary legal issues before the court were the principles governing applications for access to funds held by the court when those funds are subject to a resulting or constructive trust claimed by the estate, and the applicability of the presumption of advancement in the context of a de facto relationship. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there was a serious arguable claim that the applicant held the deceased's half interest on constructive trust for the deceased's estate due to the forfeiture rule.
The court examined the principles applicable when a party seeks access to funds held by the court, especially when those funds are claimed by an estate under a resulting or constructive trust. It was noted that the estate had a seriously arguable claim for a presumed resulting trust due to the unequal contributions to the purchase price of the jointly held property. The court also considered the presumption of advancement in the context of a de facto relationship, concluding that the current authority did not support the assumption that a presumption of advancement applies in such circumstances. Furthermore, the court explored the implications of the forfeiture rule under the Forfeiture Act 1995, noting that the estate had a seriously arguable claim that the applicant held the deceased's half interest on constructive trust for the deceased's estate.
The court granted the application for access to part of the funds held in court, subject to the applicant providing satisfactory estimates of the costs to be applied in priority to the criminal appeal proceedings. The decision highlighted the importance of equitable principles and the forfeiture rule in determining the distribution of jointly held property in the context of a deceased estate. The court's ruling ensured that the estate's claims were considered while also balancing the applicant's need for legal representation in ongoing proceedings. The final orders required the applicant to provide detailed cost estimates, ensuring transparency and fairness in the allocation of the jointly held funds.