Scanlon v Mcleay

Case [2018] QDC 17


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Christine Robyne Scanlon v Michelle Ann McLeay [2018] QDC 17

PARTIES:

CHRSTINE ROBYNE SCANLON
(applicant)

v

MICHELLE ANN MCLEAY
(respondent)

FILE NO.:

19 of 2014

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

DELIVERED ON:

28 February 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 and 17 November 2017

JUDGE:

Rosengren DCJ

ORDER:

1.   I declare that the respondent holds her legal interest in the real property, described in these reasons as the Chermside property, on trust for the applicant to the extent of $49,000. 

2.   I will hear the parties as to the appropriate form of the orders for performance of the trust. 

3.   The originating application is otherwise dismissed.

4.   I will hear the parties as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – IMPLIED TRUSTS – RESULTING TRUSTS – WHEN ARISING – JOINT PURCHASE OF LAND – UNCONSCIONABILITY – where the applicant and the respondent were de facto partners - where the applicant and respondent both contributed money towards the deposit for the purchase of the Chermside property – where the title of the Chermside property was in the respondent’s name only – whether the applicant’s contribution to the deposit was intended to be a gift – whether a resulting trust exists in favour of the applicant to the extent of her contribution to the deposit

EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – IMPLIED TRUSTS – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS – UNCONSCIONABILITY whether the applicant’s financial contributions to the Chermside property entitle her to an equitable interest in the property by way of remedial constructive trust

Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242, cited
Vlahos Pty Ltd v Vlahos [2017] VSCA 166, cited
Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886, cited
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583, cited
Charles Marshall Pty Ltd v Grimsley (1965) 160 CLR 583, cited
Barker v Linklater & Anor [2007] QCA 363, cited
Hardman v Hardman [2002] QSC 112, cited

Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137, cited
Clancy v Salienta Pty Ltd (2000) 11 BPR 20,425, cited
Drever v Drever [1936] ALR 446, cited

COUNSEL:

T O’Brien for the applicant
D Topp for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

MacDonald Law for the applicant
Advance Family Lawyers for the respondent

[1]          The parties were in a personal relationship between approximately May 2008 and September 2013.  They commenced co-habiting in March 2010, after a property was purchased at 10 Monserrat St, Chermside (‘the Chermside property’).  While the respondent is the registered proprietor of the Chermside property, the applicant contributed $49,000 to the deposit and made other payments to the respondent’s mortgage account.   She also paid for the installation of blinds and a fence.

[2]          By an originating application filed on 17 April 2014, the applicant seeks declaratory and other equitable relief relating to the Chermside property arising out of the abovementioned contributions. 

[3]          On 18 November 2015, Dorney DCJ QC ordered that the affidavits filed in the proceedings be treated as pleadings.  Directions were also made in…

Continue reading Scanlon v Mcleay

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Christine Robyne Scanlon v Michelle Ann McLeay [2018] QDC 17
Case
[2018] QDC 17
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Scanlon and Mcleay were de facto partners who jointly purchased a property at Chermside. Scanlon contributed to the deposit, but the property was registered in Mcleay’s name. Scanlon sought to establish both a resulting trust and a remedial constructive trust over the property, arguing her contributions should reflect an equitable interest. The court was tasked with determining if Scanlon's contributions to the deposit were intended as a gift or if they created a resulting trust in her favour, and whether her financial contributions entitled her to a remedial constructive trust.

The court examined the nature of Scanlon and Mcleay's relationship, their intentions regarding the property purchase, and the circumstances surrounding Scanlon's contributions. It considered whether Scanlon's contributions were intended as a gift or as a security for a beneficial interest. The court also assessed if the unconscionability of Mcleay retaining the property without recognising Scanlon's interest warranted a remedial constructive trust. The court determined that Scanlon's contributions to the deposit were not intended as a gift, thus a resulting trust was applicable to the extent of her contribution. However, the court did not find sufficient evidence to support a remedial constructive trust.

The court declared that Mcleay holds the legal interest in the Chermside property on trust for Scanlon to the extent of $49,000, reflecting Scanlon's contribution to the deposit. The court scheduled further hearings to discuss the form of the orders for performance of the trust and to address the issue of costs. The originating application was dismissed in all other respects.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I declare that the respondent holds her legal interest in the real property, described in these reasons as the Chermside property, on trust for the applicant to the extent of $49,000.

2. I will hear the parties as to the appropriate form of the orders for performance of the trust.

3. The originating application is otherwise dismissed.

4. I will hear the parties as to costs.

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.