Legal Research
Cases
Tayles v Davis

Tayles v Davis

Case [2009] VSCA 304 18 December 2009

Resulting Trust

Domestic Relationship

Adjustment of Property Interests

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 4285 of 2004

IAN TAYLES	Appellant
	v
SUSAN DAVIS	Respondent

---

JUDGES	NEAVE and REDLICH JJA and VICKERY AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	5 March 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT	18 December 2009
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2009] VSCA 304
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	Davis v Tayles [2006] VSC 219 (Smith J)	1^st Revision – 27 January 2010

---

TRUST AND TRUSTEES – Resulting trust – Domestic relationship – Parties engaged to be married - Whether presumption arising from contributions to purchase price arose – Whether rebutted by contrary intention.

REAL PROPERTY – Domestic relationship – Adjustment of property interests under Part IX of the Property Law Act 1958 – Whether adjustment of property interests just and equitable –Disputed length of relationship – Assessment of contributions – Assumption of liability under mortgage – Work undertaken by party to other’s property – Appropriateness of development cost deductions made to valuation of property before subdivision – Whether deductions for capital gains tax required in relation to increases in value of properties – Whether adequate weight given to party’s continued residence in family home – Appeal allowed in part.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal – Effect of party’s failure to raise issue during trial.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr M L Sifris SC with Mr G L Rice	Zindilis Barristers & Solicitors
For the Respondent	Ms C E Molyneux QC with Mr D H Colman	Eales & Mackenzie

NEAVE JA:

Susan Davis and Ian Tayles were de facto partners. After their relationship ended Mrs Davis brought proceedings against Mr Tayles in the trial division of the Supreme Court under Part IX of the Property Law Act 1958 (the ‘Act’). She sought orders adjusting the parties’ interests in their real and personal property under s 285 of the Act and various related orders.

The learned judge held that the de facto relationship between Mrs Davis and Mr Tayles lasted for a four year period between late September 1999 and September 2003.[1] He made a declaration under s 287 of the Act that Mrs Davis and Mr Tayles each held a half interest in their former home at 31 Howard Street, Glen Iris (the ‘Glen Iris property’), in which Mrs Davis is still living.
[1]Part IX of the Act applies to ‘domestic partners’ and ‘domestic relationships’, rather than ‘de facto partners’: see ss 275 and 278. That provision applied to the parties, although their relationship commenced before the amendment came into operation: s 276. I have described the couple as ‘de facto partners’ for the sake of convenience.

His Honour exercised his jurisdiction to divide the property of the parties on a just and equitable basis by ordering that the defendant transfer one half of his interest in that property to the plaintiff. The effect of these orders was that Mrs Davis acquired a three-quarters interest and Mr Tayles retained a one-quarter interest in their former residence. His Honour ordered that the Glen Iris…

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 Tayles v Davis

Details

AGLC: Tayles v Davis [2009] VSCA 304
Case: [2009] VSCA 304
Decision Date: 18 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tayles v Davis involved a dispute between the parties regarding the division of property interests following the termination of a de facto relationship and their engagement, which was subsequently called off. The primary issue before the court was the determination of whether a resulting trust arose from the contributions made by the parties towards the purchase price of a property. A secondary issue concerned the adjustment of property interests under Part IX of the Property Law Act 1958, specifically whether such an adjustment was just and equitable in the circumstances.

The court examined the nature of the relationship and the presumptions that arose from the contributions made by the parties to the purchase price. It was necessary to determine whether this presumption was rebutted by any evidence of contrary intention. Additionally, the court needed to assess the factors relevant to an adjustment of property interests under the Act, including the length of the relationship, the assessment of contributions, and the appropriateness of various deductions made to the valuation of the property. The court also considered whether adequate weight was given to one party's continued residence in the family home.

The court found that certain issues were not properly raised during the trial and, therefore, could not be considered on appeal. However, it allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge had not adequately considered some of the factors relevant to the adjustment of property interests. The court concluded that a resulting trust arose from the contributions made by the parties to the purchase price, but that this presumption was rebutted by contrary intention. The court also found that the trial judge had not given adequate weight to one party's continued residence in the family home and that certain deductions made to the valuation of the property were inappropriate.

The court ordered that the property be divided in a manner that reflected the contributions made by each party and the other relevant factors. It also ordered that certain costs be paid by one party to the other.

Orders