Zhang v Metcalf

Case [2020] NSWCA 228


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Zhang v Metcalf; Metcalf v Zhang [2020] NSWCA 228
Hearing dates: 27 August 2020
Decision date: 23 September 2020
Before: Gleeson JA at [1]
Payne JA at [139]
White JA at [140]
Decision:

(1)   Appeal allowed in part as to ground 4.

(2)   Appeal otherwise dismissed.

(3)   Cross-appeal dismissed.

(4)   Vary orders 2, 3, 4 and 5 made by the primary judge on 19 December 2019 by:

(a)   deleting all references to the figure “$447,899.38” and inserting in its place the figure “$422,709”;

(b)   deleting all references to the figure “$469,712.78” and inserting in its place the figure “$443,010.95”;

(c)   deleting the reference to the figure “$26,587.52” and inserting in its place the figure “$25,076.07”;

(d)   extending the date in order 5 from “5 February 2020” to “7 October 2020”;

such that orders 2, 3, 4 and 5 as amended, with effect from 19 December 2019, are as follows:

(2)   Declare that:

(a)   the Plaintiff as against the Defendant is entitled to an award in the sum of $422,709.00 on his claim for the balance of his entitlement to such net proceeds of sale; and

(b)   the Defendant as against the Plaintiff is entitled to an award in the sum of $4,774.12, on her claim for an account for the benefits flowing from her advance of $60,000 to the mortgage offset account in respect of the said land.

(3)   Judgment and order for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the sum of $443,010.95 comprising:

(a)   the balance of the awards in 2(a) and (b) above, namely $417,934.88; and

(b)   interest on such balance from 16 September 2016 up to judgment but only for three years for the reasons indicated at the rate of 2% per annum, namely $25,076.07.

(4)   Order that the Freezing Order of the Court made in proceedings 2016/371835 on 12 or 15 December 2016 be varied only so as to enable funds in the sum of $443,010.95 to be paid or transferred to the Plaintiff from [account No. 1856].

(5)   Order that the Defendant take any necessary steps and sign all necessary documents to procure the payment of such sum of $443,010.95 into the Trust account of the solicitors for the Plaintiff by 4.00 pm on 7 October 2020.

(5)   No order as to costs of the appeal or cross-appeal, to the intent that the parties bear their own costs of the proceedings in this Court.

Catchwords:

EQUITY – trusts and trustees – resulting trusts – purchase money trusts – where de facto partners purchased commercial property as tenants in common in equal shares – whether presumption of resulting trust rebutted – where contemporaneous deed evidencing actual intention of parties to hold property beneficially in equal shares – appropriate division of net sale proceeds of the commercial property

EQUITY – trusts and trustees – resulting trusts – purchase money trusts – where de facto partners purchased residential property as joint tenants – whether presumption of resulting…

Continue reading Zhang v Metcalf

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Zhang v Metcalf; Metcalf v Zhang [2020] NSWCA 228
Case
[2020] NSWCA 228
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Zhang v Metcalf* concerned the beneficial ownership of two properties purchased by de facto partners. The dispute centred on the division of the net sale proceeds of a commercial property, which the parties had purchased as tenants in common in equal shares, and a residential property, which they had acquired as joint tenants. The Court of Appeal of New South Wales was required to determine whether the presumption of a resulting trust applied to the commercial property and, if so, whether it had been rebutted by a contemporaneous deed evidencing the parties' actual intention to hold the property beneficially in equal shares. The court also considered whether a constructive trust arose after the purchase of the residential property and the significance of the parties' conduct thereafter.

The court allowed the appeal in part, specifically concerning ground 4, but dismissed the appeal otherwise and the cross-appeal. The primary judge's orders were varied to adjust the monetary amounts awarded and to extend a deadline for payment. The amended orders declared the plaintiff's entitlement to a sum of $422,709.00 for his share of the net proceeds of sale of the commercial property, and the defendant's entitlement to $4,774.12 for benefits from her advance to the mortgage offset account. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for $443,010.95, which comprised the balance of these awards and interest calculated for three years at 2% per annum. A freezing order was varied to permit the payment of this sum to the plaintiff, with the defendant ordered to take necessary steps to procure the payment by 7 October 2020. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Appeal allowed in part as to ground 4.

(2) Appeal otherwise dismissed.

(3) Cross-appeal dismissed.

(4) Vary orders 2, 3, 4 and 5 made by the primary judge on 19 December 2019 by:

(a) deleting all references to the figure “$447,899.38” and inserting in its place the figure “$422,709”;

(b) deleting all references to the figure “$469,712.78” and inserting in its place the figure “$443,010.95”;

(c) deleting the reference to the figure “$26,587.52” and inserting in its place the figure “$25,076.07”;

(d) extending the date in order 5 from “5 February 2020” to “7 October 2020”;

such that orders 2, 3, 4 and 5 as amended, with effect from 19 December 2019, are as follows:

(2) Declare that:

(a) the Plaintiff as against the Defendant is entitled to an award in the sum of $422,709.00 on his claim for the balance of his entitlement to such net proceeds of sale; and

(b) the Defendant as against the Plaintiff is entitled to an award in the sum of $4,774.12, on her claim for an account for the benefits flowing from her advance of $60,000 to the mortgage offset account in respect of the said land.

(3) Judgment and order for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the sum of $443,010.95 comprising:

(a) the balance of the awards in 2(a) and (b) above, namely $417,934.88; and

(b) interest on such balance from 16 September 2016 up to judgment but only for three years for the reasons indicated at the rate of 2% per annum, namely $25,076.07.

(4) Order that the Freezing Order of the Court made in proceedings 2016/371835 on 12 or 15 December 2016 be varied only so as to enable funds in the sum of $443,010.95 to be paid or transferred to the Plaintiff from [account No. 1856].

(5) Order that the Defendant take any necessary steps and sign all necessary documents to procure the payment of such sum of $443,010.95 into the Trust account of the solicitors for the Plaintiff by 4.00 pm on 7 October 2020.

(5) No order as to costs of the appeal or cross-appeal, to the intent that the parties bear their own costs of the proceedings in this Court.

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.