Stallan v Kent

Case [2025] QDC 177


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Stallan & Anor v Kent [2025] QDC 177

PARTIES:

GREGORY BRETT STALLAN ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF AVIS LORRAINE STALLAN (DECEASED)

(first plaintiff)

AND

GREGORY BRETT STALLAN
(second plaintiff)

v

SUSAN AVIS KENT

(defendant)

FILE NO:

DC No. 113 of 2021

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

17 November 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

26, 27, 28 May 2025

JUDGE:

Treviño KC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   It is declared that Susan Avis Kent holds 85% of the property situated at 2/44-46 Turner Street, Whitfield in the State of Queensland and described as lot 2 on survey plan 198017, Title Reference 50726370 on constructive trust for Gregory Brett Stallan on behalf of the estate of Lorraine Avis Stallan (deceased).

2.   The parties have liberty to apply within 14 days for any further or consequential orders necessary to give effect to the declaration made.

3.   The second plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

4.   I will hear the parties as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – TRUSTS – RESULTING TRUSTS – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS – TRANSFER OF TITLE – whether the deceased has an equitable interest in the property - where a resulting trust created in the deceased’s favour upon the deceased’s financial contribution to the purchase price  – where there is a transfer of title – whether the defendant acknowledged and accepted the deceased’s interest in the property prior to its transfer – whether there was any alteration of the deceased’s equitable interest in the property – whether a constructive trust is an available remedy – where equity will impose a constructive trust as remedy to preclude an unconscionable assertion of legal rights

CASES:

Bosanac v Commissioner of Taxation [2022] 275 CLR 37

Calverly v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242

Camden v McKenzie [2008] 1 Qd R 39

Dable v Peisley [2009] NSWSC 772

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Konann Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue & Anor (2015) 100 ATR 772

Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 538

Peffer v Rigg & Anor [1977] WLR 285

Swettenham v Wild [2005] QCA 264

Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315

COUNSEL:

C Ryall for the plaintiffs

P Sommers for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Absolute Law for the plaintiffs
O’Connor Law for the defendant

Introduction

  1. Mrs Avis Lorraine Stallan died on 3 August 2019 at the age of 87.  She was survived by her two children, Mr Gregory Brett Stallan and Ms Susan Avis Kent.  For the last 11 years of her life, she lived alone at a duplex unit situated at 2/44-46 Turner St, Whitfield, Cairns.  The legal title for the property was never held by her.  Presently, Ms Kent is the sole title holder.  At the time Mrs Stallan assumed occupancy of the property, the title was held by Ms Kent and a company owned by Ms Kent’s then husband.  Prior to moving in, Mrs Stallan had paid that company $323,000.00 towards the purchase of the property.  At issue in…

Continue reading Stallan v Kent

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Stallan v Kent [2025] QDC 177
Case
[2025] QDC 177
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stallan v Kent, the dispute centred on the equitable interest in a property situated at 2/44-46 Turner Street, Whitfield, Queensland, following the death of Lorraine Avis Stallan. The plaintiff, Gregory Brett Stallan, sought to establish the deceased’s interest in the property, which he claimed was held on constructive trust due to her financial contribution to the purchase price. The defendant, Susan Avis Kent, claimed sole ownership of the property, contending that the deceased had no equitable interest. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the deceased had an equitable interest in the property that could be recognised despite the transfer of title to the defendant. This involved determining if a resulting trust existed in favour of the deceased, given her financial contribution, and if a constructive trust could be imposed to prevent the defendant from unconscionably asserting her legal rights. The court also had to consider whether the defendant had acknowledged and accepted the deceased’s interest prior to the transfer of title, and if any actions had been taken that altered the deceased’s equitable interest.

The court found that the deceased had indeed made a financial contribution towards the purchase of the property, which created an equitable interest in her favour. Despite the transfer of title to the defendant, the court determined that the deceased’s interest remained intact. The defendant did not acknowledge or accept the deceased’s interest at the time of the transfer. Furthermore, the court concluded that equity would impose a constructive trust to prevent the defendant from unconscionably asserting her legal rights, thereby recognising the deceased’s equitable interest. Consequently, the court declared that Susan Avis Kent holds 85% of the property on constructive trust for Gregory Brett Stallan on behalf of the estate of Lorraine Avis Stallan (deceased).

The court dismissed the second plaintiff’s claim and granted the parties liberty to apply within 14 days for any further or consequential orders necessary to give effect to the declaration made. The court reserved decision on costs, indicating that it would hear the parties on this matter.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. It is declared that Susan Avis Kent holds 85% of the property situated at 2/44-46 Turner Street, Whitfield in the State of Queensland and described as lot 2 on survey plan 198017, Title Reference 50726370 on constructive trust for Gregory Brett Stallan on behalf of the estate of Lorraine Avis Stallan (deceased).

2. The parties have liberty to apply within 14 days for any further or consequential orders necessary to give effect to the declaration made.

3. The second plaintiff’s claim is 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.