DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Treichel & Anor v Treichel [2022] QDC 181
PARTIES:
NIGEL RENE TREICHEL
(First Plaintiff)
AND
LEANNE TREICHEL
(Second Plaintiff)
v
LESLIE ARTHUR TREICHEL
(Defendant)
FILE NO/S:
155/21
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
12 August 2022
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
12, 13, 14, 15 July 2021
JUDGE:
Rinaudo AM DCJ
ORDER:
1. The plaintiffs’ claim is dismissed.
2. The caveat registered by the plaintiffs as caveators over Lot 3 on RP 165739 with Title Reference 15908035 (“the property”) be removed.
3. Judgment be entered for the defendant on the counterclaim, with the plaintiffs to pay to the defendant the sum of $41,377.96.
4. The defendant recover possession of the property from the plaintiffs on or before 13 December 2022, by the delivery of vacant possession.
5. The plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs as agreed, or to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:
EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – IMPLIED TRUSTS – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS – where the defendant is the father of the first plaintiff – where it was alleged that the defendant holds his interest in the property on constructive trust for the first and second plaintiffs – where it is argued that the plaintiffs undertook extensive renovations to the property – where it is argued that the improvements to the property contributed to its increase in value – where it was alleged that there is a common intention supported by the representations and conduct by the defendant which gave rise to an expectation that they would be the owners of the property – whether a constructive trust should be imposed over the property, to reflect the plaintiff’s alleged contribution – whether there was detrimental reliance by the plaintiffs on such a common intention
LEGISLATION:
Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s. 58
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s. 59
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), ss. 11, 14, 1070C
CASES:
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242
Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394
Irvine v Scaysbrook [2005] NSWSC 565
Giumelli v Giumelli (1990) 196 CLR 101
McBride v Sandland (1918) 25 CLR 69
Muschinski v Dodds (1984) 169 CLR 583
Shepherd v Doolan [2005] NSWSC 42
Stern v McArthur (1988) 165 CLR 489
COUNSEL:
T. Nielsen for the plaintiffs
G. Barr for the defendant
SOLICITORS
Black Bear Legal for the plaintiffs
Greenhalgh Pickard Solicitors for the defendant
Overview
By amended statement of claim filed 27 January 2021, the first plaintiff (Rene) and the second plaintiff (Leanne) claim:
(a)A declaration that the defendant holds his interest in the real property located at 7 Melaleuca Street, Kuluin Queensland on constructive and/or implied and/or resulting trust for the first and second plaintiffs;
(b)Further or alternatively, that the defendant pay to the first and second…
Continue reading Treichel v Treichel
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Treichel v Treichel [2022] QDC 181
- Case
- [2022] QDC 181
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide whether the plaintiffs' alleged contributions to the property's value and their reliance on the defendant's representations justified the imposition of a constructive trust. The court also needed to determine whether there was a common intention between the parties that the plaintiffs would have an interest in the property, supported by the defendant's conduct, and whether the plaintiffs had detrimentally relied on such an intention.
In dismissing the plaintiffs' claims, the court held that there was insufficient evidence to establish a common intention that the plaintiffs would have an interest in the property, nor was there any detrimental reliance by the plaintiffs on any such intention. The court found that the plaintiffs had not discharged the onus of proof in establishing a constructive trust, and therefore, the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed. The court further ordered the removal of the caveat registered by the plaintiffs over the property, and granted judgment to the defendant on the counterclaim. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs, and the defendant was to recover possession of the property by a specified date.
The court's final orders included the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim, the removal of the caveat, the entry of judgment for the defendant on the counterclaim, and the payment of costs by the plaintiffs. The defendant was also granted possession of the property by a specified date.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The plaintiffs’ claim is dismissed.
2. The caveat registered by the plaintiffs as caveators over Lot 3 on RP 165739 with Title Reference 15908035 (“the property”) be removed.
3. Judgment be entered for the defendant on the counterclaim, with the plaintiffs to pay to the defendant the sum of $41,377.96.
4. The defendant recover possession of the property from the plaintiffs on or before 13 December 2022, by the delivery of vacant possession.
5. The plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs as agreed, or to be assessed on the standard basis.
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.