Trajkoski v The State of Western Australia

In the case of Trajkoski v The State of Western Australia, the matter involved objections by the plaintiffs to the confiscation of real property under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 (WA). The plaintiffs contended that the property interest was not owned or effectively controlled by the first plaintiff and that the second plaintiff held an equitable interest in the first plaintiff's property interest. The dispute centred around whether the second plaintiff had a constructive trust interest in the first plaintiff's property, particularly given the contributions made by the second plaintiff during the first plaintiff's period of imprisonment.

The court was required to determine whether there was a common intention that the second plaintiff would have a beneficial interest in the first plaintiff's property interest, applying the principles from Muschinski v Dodds and Baumgartner v Baumgartner. It also needed to assess whether the second plaintiff's contributions during the first plaintiff's imprisonment created an unconscionability factor that would warrant a finding of equitable interest. Furthermore, the court considered the application of equitable accounting principles in relation to improvements made to the property and any obligation to pay occupation rent.

The court found that while there was a joint endeavour by the plaintiffs, the contributions made by the second plaintiff during the first plaintiff's imprisonment did not establish unconscionability. Consequently, the court held that there was no common intention that the second plaintiff would have a beneficial interest in the first plaintiff's property. The court concluded that there was no constructive trust in favour of the second plaintiff. Additionally, the court applied equitable accounting principles to determine that the second plaintiff was not entitled to any benefit from improvements made to the property and was required to pay occupation rent.

The court ordered that the objections of the plaintiffs to the confiscation of the real property were dismissed.