Mario Salvo & 2 Ors v New Tel Limited [2005] NSWCA 281
HEARING DATE(S):
5 May 2005
JUDGMENT DATE:
25 August 2005
JUDGMENT OF:
Spigelman CJ at 1; Handley JA at 71; Young CJ in Eq at 83
DECISION:
1 Appeal and Cross-Appeal dismissed; 2 No order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:
TRUSTS - Express trusts - Where money borrowed for purpose of purchasing company - Where money held on trust for lender - Where money paid as deposit - Where deposit returned - Whether returned deposit held on trust for lender - Discussion of Quistclose trusts - TRUSTS - Express trusts - Where subscription agreement created express trust of subscription price - Where subscription monies paid by cash and amounts set-off - Whether amounts set-off part of subscription price - Whether amount set-off held on trust - Whether any property capable of being subject-matter of trust - TRUSTS - Resulting trusts - Discussion
Mario Salvo (First Appellant/First Cross-Respondent) Bilpin Projects Pty Limited (Second Appellant/Second Cross-Respondent) New Era Telecommunications Pty Limited as trustee for Elray Property Group Trust (Third Appellant/Third Cross-Respondent) New Tel Limited (in liquidation) (Respondent/Cross-Appellant)
FILE NUMBER(S):
CA 40861/04
COUNSEL:
B Coles QC, R Brender (Appellants/Cross-Respondents) D Hammerschlag SC, I Pike (Respondent/Cross-Appellant)
[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 Salvo v New Tel Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Salvo v New Tel Ltd [2005] NSWCA 281
Case
[2005] NSWCA 281
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Salvo v New Tel Ltd* concerned a dispute over funds allegedly held on trust. The appellant, Salvo, claimed that money lent to New Tel Ltd for the purpose of purchasing a company, and subsequently paid as a deposit, was held on trust for him. This deposit was later returned to New Tel Ltd. A related issue involved a subscription agreement where Salvo alleged that subscription monies, paid partly in cash and partly through set-off, were also held on trust.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales were whether the returned deposit constituted property held on trust for Salvo, and whether the amounts set-off under the subscription agreement were part of the subscription price and thus subject to an express trust. The court was required to consider the principles governing *Quistclose* trusts and express trusts, particularly in relation to the identification of trust property and the nature of the consideration for the subscription agreement.
The court discussed the principles of *Quistclose* trusts, noting that such trusts arise when money is paid for a specific purpose and the payer retains an equitable interest in the funds. However, the court found that the evidence did not establish that the returned deposit was held on trust for Salvo. Regarding the subscription agreement, the court considered whether the set-off amounts could be considered part of the subscription price and therefore subject to an express trust. The court ultimately determined that there was no identifiable property capable of being the subject-matter of a trust in relation to the set-off amounts.
The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1 Appeal and Cross-Appeal dismissed; 2 No order as to costs.