SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Waterhouse v Power [2003] QCA 155
PARTIES:
MERRIN ELIZABETH WATERHOUSE
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
SHERIDAN MAREE POWER(defendant/respondent)
FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 5192 of 2002
SC No 9149 of 2000
DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
11 April 2003
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
25 March 2003
JUDGES:
de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, de Jersey CJ and Williams JA concurring as to the order made, Atkinson J dissenting in part
ORDER:
Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed
CATCHWORDS:
EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – EQUITABLE ESTATES AND INTERESTS – CREATION – where Wavell Heights property owned by respondent – where appellant claimed contribution of more than one half to cost of groceries and associated household running expenses – where appellant contributed to enhancement of Wavell Heights property – where appellant paid sums indirectly to respondent – where appellant not accepted by trial Judge as creditable witness – whether a nexus between disparity of contributions and acquisition, enhancement and retention of the Wavell Heights property – whether a joint endeavour – whether appellant is entitled to one half share in Wavell Heights property in equity
EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – CONSTITUTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF TRUSTS GENERALLY – IMPLIED TRUSTS – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS – INDEPENDENT OF INTENTION – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where Chillingham property and four-wheel drive vehicle owned in joint names – where contributions to Chillingham property and four-wheel drive vehicle unequal – where appellant not accepted by trial Judge as creditable witness – whether constructive trust formed in appellant’s favour in each case
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137, considered
Dunne v Turner [1996] QCA 272; Appeal No 196 of 1995, 20 August 1996, considered
Engwirda v Engwirda & Ors [2000] QCA 61; Appeal Nos 321 and 1860 of 1999, 10 March 2000, considered
Meehan v Fuller [1999] QCA 37; Appeal No 1323 of 1998, 26 February 1999, 17 November 1999, considered
Muschinski v Dodds (1984-1985) 160 CLR 583, distinguishedWarren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531, considered
COUNSEL:
K C Fleming QC, with P A Kronberg, for the appellant
S L Doyle SC, with K E Downes, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Watts & Co for the appellant
Denise Maxwell, Solicitor for the respondent
de JERSEY CJ: The appellant and the respondent lived together in a same-sex relationship for approximately eight years in the 1990's. When the relationship commenced, the respondent owned a house at Wavell Heights. The parties lived together in that house. The appellant has unsuccessfully through these proceedings claimed a one half share in that property. During their relationship, the parties acquired a property at Chillingham in Northern New South Wales and a four-wheel drive vehicle. Each of those pieces of property was put into their joint names. The appellant also unsuccessfully claimed the respondent's interest in that property. (The Chillingham property had…
Continue reading Waterhouse v Power
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Waterhouse v Power [2003] QCA 155
- Case
- [2003] QCA 155
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to consider several legal issues, including whether there was a nexus between the disparity in contributions and the acquisition, enhancement, and retention of the Wavell Heights property. Additionally, the court had to examine if there was a joint endeavour and whether this justified the creation of an equitable interest in the property. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether Waterhouse's indirect payments to Power constituted contributions towards the properties. The court also had to evaluate the credibility of Waterhouse as a witness, as the trial judge had found Waterhouse not to be a creditable witness.
The court held that Waterhouse's contributions to the Wavell Heights property did not create an equitable interest in the property, as there was no joint endeavour or common intention to acquire an interest in the property. The court also found that Waterhouse's indirect payments to Power did not constitute contributions towards the properties. Additionally, the court held that there was no constructive trust over the Chillingham property and the four-wheel drive vehicle in Waterhouse's favour, as the contributions made by Waterhouse were not significant enough to create such a trust. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were to be assessed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed
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.