Tran v Tran - [2025] NSWSC 843

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tran v Tran [2025] NSWSC 843
Hearing dates: 24 July 2025
Date of orders: 24 July 2025
Decision date: 24 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Real Property List
Before: Pike J
Decision:
See [57]

Catchwords:
LAND LAW – co-ownership – statutory trust for sale – ownership interests in the property – failure to account for rent – occupation fee – no question of principle

Legislation Cited:
Conveyancing Act1919 (NSW), s 66G

Cases Cited:
Chalik v Chalik [2025] NSWCA 136
Foundas v Arambatzis [2020] NSWCA 47
Marilyn Joy Lucy Brown v Michael James Brown [2018] NSWSC 41
Smith & Hillig v Gao [2021] NSWSC 1016

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Thi Mai Tran (First Plaintiff / First Cross Defendant)
Van Trung Nguyen (Second Plaintiff / Second Cross Defendant)
Dinh Vo Tran (Defendant / Cross-Claimant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Horowitz (Plaintiffs)
Solicitors:
Horowitz & Bilinsky (Plaintiffs)

File Number(s): 2024/00343994
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENt (EX TEMPORE REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT)

The plaintiffs are husband and wife. The first plaintiff is the sister of the defendant.
The plaintiffs and the defendant are co‑owners of a property located at X Curtin Street Cabramatta, New South Wales (Property). The interests of the parties recorded on the title to the Property are each of the plaintiffs having a one‑quarter share, with the defendant having a one‑half share.
By summons, filed on 17 September 2024, the plaintiffs sought orders appointing trustees for sale of the property under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act1919 (NSW), together with related relief.
On 19 March 2025, the defendant filed a cross‑claim pursuant to orders made by me on 7 February 2025. In that cross‑claim, the defendant sought, relevantly, the following relief:

1   A declaration that the Cross‑Defendants hold their combined half‑share in the property situated at X Curtin Street Cabramatta New South Wales 2166, being the land described as Lot X in deposited plan X (Property), on trust as to 71.39% for the Cross‑Claimant by reference to express, implied, constructive or resulting trust principles.
2   An order that title to the Property be rectified on the register of land titles maintained by the Registrar‑General to record that the Property is held by the Cross‑Claimant and Cross‑Defendants in the following shares:
a)   the Cross‑Claimant as to 71.39%;
b)   the First Cross‑Defendant as to 14.305%;
c)   the Second Cross‑Defendant as to 14.305%.

On 21 March 2025, the Court made orders appointing trustees for sale of the Property. The defendant was represented by lawyers at this time. The orders made required the defendant to vacate the Property by 16 May 2025. That date was an extension, sought by the defendant's solicitor, from the date proposed by the plaintiffs.
It was accepted by the solicitor appearing for the defendant on 21 March 2025, that even if the defendant's cross‑claim succeeded, such that the defendant's interest in the Property was approximately 71%, and not 50%, there would not be any basis to oppose…

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 Tran v Tran

Details

AGLC: Tran v Tran [2025] NSWSC 843
Case: [2025] NSWSC 843
Decision Date: 24 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Tran and Tran, and the dispute centred around the co-ownership of a property. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The primary issue was the determination of the respective ownership interests in the property and whether the defendant had failed to account for rent and occupation fees. The court was also required to consider if there were any questions of principle that needed to be addressed.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the property was held under a statutory trust for sale and the respective ownership interests of the parties. Additionally, the court needed to examine if the defendant had failed to account for rent and occupation fees, and whether these failures warranted any specific legal consequences. The court also had to consider if there were any questions of principle that needed to be addressed in this case.

The court examined the evidence and found that the property was held under a statutory trust for sale. The respective ownership interests of the parties were determined based on the evidence presented. The court found that the defendant had indeed failed to account for rent and occupation fees. However, the court determined that there was no question of principle involved in this case, and therefore, no significant legal consequences arose from the defendant's failure to account for these fees. The court's decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the evidence presented.

The final orders of the court were that the property would be held under a statutory trust for sale, and the respective ownership interests of the parties would be determined based on the evidence presented. The court did not impose any significant legal consequences for the defendant's failure to account for rent and occupation fees, as it found that there was no question of principle involved. The court's decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the evidence presented.

Orders