Stephenson v Santos

Case [2020] NSWCA 262


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Stephenson v Santos [2020] NSWCA 262
Hearing dates: 2 October 2020
Decision date: 21 October 2020
Before: Basten JA at [1];
Leeming JA at [2];
McCallum JA at [43].
Decision:

1. To the extent necessary, grant leave to appeal.

2. Appeal dismissed, with costs.

Catchwords:

CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS – house purchased in name of niece – primary judge found aunt and niece agreed that aunt would pay half outgoings in exchange for a one half beneficial interest – primary judge ordered niece to account to aunt for one half of net proceeds of sale, on terms that aunt repay amounts obtained from Centrelink for rental assistance – whether reasons of primary judge inadequate – whether finding as to common intention should be set aside – whether primary judge erred as to effect of illegality – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101

Cases Cited:

Allen v Snyder [1977] 2 NSWLR 685

Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137; [1987] HCA 59

Bijkerk Investments Pty Ltd v Bikic [2020] NSWSC 1336

Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton (2012) 246 CLR 498; [2012] HCA 7

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22

Gnych v Polish Club Ltd (2015) 255 CLR 414; [2015] HCA 23

Krnjulac v Lincu [2015] NSWCA 367

Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538; [1995] HCA 25

NSW Police Force v Winter [2011] NSWCA 330

Shellharbour City Council v Rhiannon Rigby [2006] NSWCA 308

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Olga Stephenson (Appellant)
Lourdes Santos (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J McIntosh (Appellant)
H Jewell (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Diaz & Diaz Lawyers (Appellant)
Seniors Rights Service (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/83815
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Equity Division
Citation:

[2020] NSWSC 90

Date of Decision:
14 February 2020
Before:
Parker J
File Number(s):
2018/389003

Judgment

  1. BASTEN JA: I agree with Leeming JA.

  2. LEEMING JA: The appellant, Ms Olga Stephenson, and the respondent, Ms Lourdes Santos, are niece and aunt. Ms Santos came to Australia from the Philippines many years ago. In 1985, she sponsored her sister Ms Adelina Aracan, together with her sister’s husband and son, to migrate to Australia as skilled migrants. In 2006, Ms Santos sponsored her niece Ms Stephenson to come to Australia, once again under the skilled migration program. At first, Ms Stephenson lived with Ms Santos in rented accommodation in North Ryde together with Ms Santos’ brother, Mr Macario Santos. In 2008, Ms Stephenson acquired a four bedroom townhouse in Rooty Hill in western Sydney. Contracts were exchanged on or around 22 November 2008 and the sale was completed on 23 December 2008. Ms Stephenson was the sole registered proprietor. The purchase price was $350,000.

  3. The two women, together with Ms Santos’ brother, thereafter lived in the townhouse until 2017. Ms Santos lost her job in around 2009, and in 2010, aged 64, she…

Continue reading Stephenson v Santos

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Stephenson v Santos [2020] NSWCA 262
Case
[2020] NSWCA 262
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stephenson v Santos concerned a dispute between an aunt and her niece regarding beneficial ownership of a house. The aunt alleged that she and her niece had reached an agreement whereby the aunt would contribute to the outgoings of the house, which was registered in the niece's name, in exchange for a one-half beneficial interest. The primary judge had found in favour of the aunt, ordering the niece to account for one-half of the net proceeds of sale, subject to the aunt repaying any amounts received from Centrelink for rental assistance. The niece appealed this decision.

The appeal raised several legal issues for determination by the Court of Appeal. These included whether the primary judge's reasons for finding a common intention between the parties were inadequate, whether the finding as to common intention should be set aside, and whether the primary judge had erred in considering the effect of illegality on the agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the primary judge's reasoning. The court affirmed the principles governing the establishment of constructive trusts based on common intention and contribution. It was held that the primary judge had adequately articulated the basis for finding a common intention and that the evidence supported this finding. Furthermore, the court found that the primary judge had correctly addressed the issue of illegality, concluding that it did not vitiate the agreement for a beneficial interest in the property.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. To the extent necessary, grant leave to appeal.

2. Appeal dismissed, with 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.