Stack v Marshall - [2022] QDC 274

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Stack v Marshall [2022] QDC 274

PARTIES:

STACK

(plaintiff)

v

MARSHALL

(defendant)

FILE NO:
616/21

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 December 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 and 13 September 2022

JUDGE:

Jarro DCJ

ORDER:

1.          It is declared that the defendant holds, on a resulting trust for the plaintiff, the sale proceeds of the property located at 17 Best Street, Brighton in the State of Queensland, more particularly described as Lot 13 on RP 75530 with Title Reference 12721094.

2.          The defendant is to pay the plaintiff $456,000 in equitable compensation.

3.          Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $80,000.

4.          The counterclaim is dismissed.

5.          I will hear from the parties as to interest and costs. The parties are directed to file any material and written submissions (limited to two pages) as to interest and costs within seven days.

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – RESULTING TRUST – GIFT – REBUTTUNG THE PRESUMPTION – property purchased in defendant’s name – plaintiff provided funds to acquire purchase – presumption of resulting trust – whether presumption rebutted on basis of gift – whether gift or loan – presumption rebutted – no intention to make gift

LEGISLATION:

Uniform Civil Procedural Rules 1999
Property Law Act 1974

CASES:
Calvery v Green [1984] HCA 81
Scanlon v McLeay [2018] QDC 17
Horley v Sector 7G Architecture Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2011] NSWSC 827
Irons v Smallpiece (1819) 106 ER 467
Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221
Parker and Parker v Glenninda Pty Ltd (1998) Q Conv R 54-499
Ryan v Ryan [2012] NSWSC 636
Weighe v Cupton Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 41

COUNSEL:
SW Trewavas for the plaintiff

SOLICITORS:
Gibbs Wright Lawyers for the plaintiff

John William Marshall self-litigant

This case is a simple one. It involves the plaintiff who provided funds, which is not disputed by the defendant, to acquire real estate registered in the defendant’s name. Because of this, the plaintiff primarily seeks a declaration of a resulting trust. The defendant’s case is that the plaintiff gifted him the relevant funds. For reasons to follow, I am satisfied the plaintiff should be entitled to the relief that she seeks, and I am not satisfied the defendant has rebutted the presumption of a resulting trust, in that the plaintiff gifted him the funds to acquire the real estate.

The Facts

The plaintiff is a widow who met the defendant after her husband’s passing. In about mid-2019, an intimate relationship between the two commenced. The relationship lasted for approximately 13 months and ceased in around August 2020. During the relationship, the parties discussed purchasing a house because the plaintiff had sufficient capital for this to occur.
The plaintiff asserts that in early 2020 an oral agreement was made between them to purchase, renovate and sell a property located at 17 Best Street Brighton (the ‘Brighton Property’). It is alleged that:
(a)The Brighton Property would be purchased in the defendant’s…

Grounds of appeal

[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 Stack v Marshall

Details

AGLC: Stack v Marshall [2022] QDC 274
Case: [2022] QDC 274
Decision Date: 2 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stack v Marshall involved a dispute over the ownership of property located at 17 Best Street, Brighton in Queensland. The plaintiff contributed to the purchase of the property, but it was registered in the defendant’s name. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant held the property on a resulting trust, alleging that the defendant had promised to transfer the property to the plaintiff but failed to do so. The defendant argued that the transfer of the property to her name was a gift and that the presumption of a resulting trust had been rebutted.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the presumption of a resulting trust could be rebutted on the basis that the plaintiff intended to make a gift of the property to the defendant. The court was required to determine whether the evidence established that the plaintiff intended to make a gift or whether the transaction was a loan. The court also had to consider whether the defendant's conduct or representations led the plaintiff to believe that the property would be transferred to the plaintiff.

The court found that the presumption of a resulting trust had not been rebutted. The evidence did not establish that the plaintiff intended to make a gift of the property to the defendant. The court held that the transaction was more consistent with a loan rather than a gift, as the plaintiff had not relinquished control over the funds provided for the purchase. The court further determined that there was no intention to make a gift based on the surrounding circumstances and the lack of any clear and unequivocal statement of intent to make a gift. The court held that the defendant held the property on a resulting trust for the plaintiff.

Consequently, the court made several orders, including a declaration that the defendant held the sale proceeds of the property on a resulting trust for the plaintiff. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff $456,000 in equitable compensation and $80,000 in judgment. The plaintiff's counterclaim was dismissed. The court also directed the parties to file submissions regarding interest and costs within seven days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. It is declared that the defendant holds, on a resulting trust for the plaintiff, the sale proceeds of the property located at 17 Best Street, Brighton in the State of Queensland, more particularly described as Lot 13 on RP 75530 with Title Reference 12721094.

2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff $456,000 in equitable compensation.

3. Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $80,000.

4. The counterclaim is dismissed.

5. I will hear from the parties as to interest and costs. The parties are directed to file any material and written submissions (limited to two pages) as to interest and costs within seven days.

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.

CITATION:	Stack v Marshall [2022] QDC 274
PARTIES:	STACK (plaintiff) v MARSHALL (defendant)
FILE NO:	616/21
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	2 December 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 and 13 September 2022
JUDGE:	Jarro DCJ
ORDER:	1. It is declared that the defendant holds, on a resulting trust for the plaintiff, the sale proceeds of the property located at 17 Best Street, Brighton in the State of Queensland, more particularly described as Lot 13 on RP 75530 with Title Reference 12721094. 2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff $456,000 in equitable compensation. 3. Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $80,000. 4. The counterclaim is dismissed. 5. I will hear from the parties as to interest and costs. The parties are directed to file any material and written submissions (limited to two pages) as to interest and costs within seven days.
CATCHWORDS:	EQUITY – RESULTING TRUST – GIFT – REBUTTUNG THE PRESUMPTION – property purchased in defendant’s name – plaintiff provided funds to acquire purchase – presumption of resulting trust – whether presumption rebutted on basis of gift – whether gift or loan – presumption rebutted – no intention to make gift
LEGISLATION:	Uniform Civil Procedural Rules 1999 Property Law Act 1974
CASES:	Calvery v Green [1984] HCA 81 Scanlon v McLeay [2018] QDC 17 Horley v Sector 7G Architecture Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2011] NSWSC 827 Irons v Smallpiece (1819) 106 ER 467 Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221 Parker and Parker v Glenninda Pty Ltd (1998) Q Conv R 54-499 Ryan v Ryan [2012] NSWSC 636 Weighe v Cupton Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 41
COUNSEL:	SW Trewavas for the plaintiff
SOLICITORS:	Gibbs Wright Lawyers for the plaintiff John William Marshall self-litigant