Weige v Cupton Pty Ltd

The appeal concerned a dispute between a former de facto partner, Ms. Weige, and a company, Cupton Pty Ltd, which had acquired an interest in a property. Ms. Weige sought to establish that she held a beneficial interest in the property, which was registered in the name of Cupton Pty Ltd, arguing that the company's sole shareholder had purchased her half-interest in the company, which in turn held the other half-interest in the property on trust for her. The appeal was heard by Basten and Ward JJA and Sackville AJA.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge had erred in making findings of fact regarding the credibility of witnesses, particularly concerning the nature of certain financial contributions to the property's purchase, and whether the trial judge had correctly determined that Cupton Pty Ltd was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any equitable interest held by Ms. Weige. The Court also considered whether the indefeasibility provisions of the *Real Property Act 1900* (NSW) protected Cupton Pty Ltd's title, and whether the company's sole shareholder held the interest in the property as a constructive trustee for Ms. Weige.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings of fact, finding no basis to disturb the assessment of witness credibility. The Court reasoned that the evidence did not demonstrate that the trial judge's findings were glaringly improbable or inconsistent with incontrovertible evidence. Furthermore, the Court concluded that Cupton Pty Ltd had acquired its interest as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, and therefore its title was protected by the indefeasibility provisions of the *Real Property Act 1900* (NSW). The Court found that the moneys advanced by Ms. Weige were properly characterised as a loan to the purchaser, rather than a contribution to her beneficial interest in the property.

The appeal was dismissed, and Cupton Pty Ltd was awarded its costs.