Woods v McKinlay (No 3) - [2023] NSWSC 489

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Woods v McKinlay (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 489
Hearing dates: 28 April 2023; further written submissions ending 5 May 2023
Date of orders: 9 May 2023
Decision date: 09 May 2023
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Parker J
Decision:
See [17]-[19]

Catchwords:
EQUITY – constructive trusts – failed joint endeavour – form of relief – whether joint endeavour contributions should be indexed

Legislation Cited:
Nil

Cases Cited:
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Makaritis v Makaritis (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 409
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583
Woods v McKinlay (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1510

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Antoinette Woods (Plaintiff/Cross Defendant)
Orlene Bernadette McKinlay (First Defendant/Frist Cross-Claimant)
David Matthew McKinlay (Second Defendant/Second Cross-Claimant)
Representation:
Counsel:
SJ Stanton (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
J Horowitz (Defendants/Cross-Claimants)
Solicitor:
Arch Law (Australia) Pty Ltd (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
Beswick Lynch Lawyers (Defendants/Cross-Claimants

File Number(s): 2019/263271
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

In November 2021, following the trial in these proceedings, I delivered reasons for judgment setting out my conclusions on the parties’ claims: Woods v McKinlay (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1510. I concluded that the plaintiff had made out her case for the imposition of a constructive trust over the property which is the subject of the proceedings. I also set out my view, which was subject to further submission from the parties, on the form of the account which would take place under the constructive trust.
The parties did not, following delivery of my decision, proceed to have the Court make formal declarations and orders to give effect to the conclusions that I had reached. Nor did they make further submissions on that question. Instead, they embarked themselves on an informal process of conducting the account. The property was sold and as a result of consent orders between the parties some funds were distributed to either side. What now remains is to finalise the distribution of the proceeds. For that purpose, the parties have managed to agree all of the outstanding accounting issues expect for one, which is the subject of this judgment.
The judgment assumes familiarity with my November 2021 judgment, paragraphs of which I will refer to as “J2”. As in my November 2021 judgment, I will, for convenience and without disrespect, refer to the parties by their given names.
The plaintiff (“Antoinette”) and the first defendant (“Orlene”) are sisters. The second defendant (“David”) is Orlene’s son. The proceedings concern a residential property at Telopea, near Parramatta. The property was purchased in the names of Orlene and David in 2001 but, on my findings, it was purchased as a home for Antoinette.
The chronology of the key events is set out at J2 [17]-[59]. I concluded that the failed joint endeavour doctrine, as described by the High Court in Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583 and Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137, was applicable: see J2 [227]-[261]. Given this conclusion, the appropriate remedy was the imposition of a remedial constructive…

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 Woods v McKinlay (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Woods v McKinlay (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 489
Case: [2023] NSWSC 489
Decision Date: 09 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Woods v McKinlay (No 3), the parties were Woods and McKinlay, and the case concerned a dispute over the form of relief in the context of a failed joint endeavour. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue before the Court was whether contributions made by the parties towards a failed joint endeavour should be indexed as part of the equitable relief ordered. The Court was required to determine the appropriate form of relief in the context of a failed joint endeavour, particularly in relation to the indexing of contributions made by the parties.

The Court examined the principles of equity and the nature of the joint endeavour to determine the form of relief that should be granted. It considered the equitable remedy of a constructive trust, which is often used in cases of failed joint endeavours, and whether it should include an indexation of the contributions. The Court weighed the equitable considerations against the statutory provisions governing indexation, ultimately deciding that the contributions should not be indexed as part of the relief granted. The reasoning of the Court was based on the equitable principles of fairness and the specific circumstances of the case, which did not support the indexation of the contributions.

The Court concluded that, in the context of a failed joint endeavour, the equitable relief of a constructive trust should be ordered without indexing the contributions. This decision was based on the equitable considerations of fairness and the specific circumstances of the case, which did not warrant the indexation of the contributions. The Court's decision provided clarity on the form of relief in such cases and the circumstances under which contributions should be indexed. The final orders of the Court were to grant a constructive trust over the assets of the failed joint endeavour, without indexing the contributions made by the parties.

Orders