Stephenson v Santos

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.