Constructive trust imposed on increase in equity during course of relationship in property not that in which parties lived, subject to right of occupancy of person presently residing in that property
CATCHWORDS:
TRUSTS - constructive trusts - arising on termination of de facto relationship - effect of payments being made from joint bank account for purposes for which both parties approve - effect of one partner owning property prior to commencement of relationship, the equity of which is increased during the relationship - whether constructive trust can be imposed on property not the home in which parties lived - effect of improvements being made to home in which parties lived - FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS - other matters - imposition of constructive trust on termination of relationship - EQUITY - equitable estates and interest - joint bank account - rights of account holders to money in account, money withdrawn from account, and property purchased with money drawn from account - EVIDENCE - miscellaneous matters - Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 - effect of failure to cross examine on evidence contained in affidavit served on opposite party before trial, and replied to by that party
[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 West v Mead
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
West v Mead [2003] NSWSC 161
Case
[2003] NSWSC 161
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of West v Mead involved a dispute between two individuals, West and Mead, who had been in a de facto relationship and shared ownership of a property. The central issue was whether a constructive trust could be imposed on the property in question upon the termination of their relationship, despite the fact that Mead owned the property prior to the commencement of the relationship and the equity in the property increased during the relationship. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia.
The legal issues that the court had to address were whether the payments made from the joint bank account, for purposes that both parties approved, could give rise to a constructive trust. Additionally, the court had to consider the effect of the improvements made to the home in which the parties lived. The court also had to determine the extent to which the equity of the property owned by Mead could be claimed by West, and whether a constructive trust could be imposed on property that was not the home in which the parties lived.
The court found that the payments made from the joint bank account did not give rise to a constructive trust. However, the court did impose a constructive trust on the property in question, taking into account the improvements made to the home during the relationship, as well as the increase in equity of the property owned by Mead. The court held that the constructive trust was not limited to the home in which the parties lived, and could extend to other property owned by Mead. The court also found that the failure to cross-examine on the evidence contained in the affidavit served on the opposite party before trial did not affect the admissibility of the evidence.
The final orders of the court were that a constructive trust be imposed on the property owned by Mead, and that the equity of the property be divided between the parties in accordance with their respective contributions to the relationship. The court also ordered that the parties share the costs of the proceedings equally.