100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 43 - 45 out of 162 pages.
Common intention must arise from an express or implied agreement between the parties. There is no scope to impute a common agreement: Allen v Snyder  2 NSWLR. - consistent with doctrine of part performance•In Ogilvie v Ryan 2 NSWLR 504, the Court recognised Miss Ryan’s proprietary interest in Mr Ogilvie’s property under a common-intention constructive trust, because -there was common intention that Miss Ryan would receive an interest in the land in exchange for her care of Mr Ogilvie, -she was induced to alter her position in detrimental reliance to benefit Mr Ogilvie, and -it would be unconscionable to use Mr Ogilvie’s legal title to deny the claim. -Common intention —> she decided to look after him to receive property. •Constructive trust can arise based solely on unconscionable use of legal title.•Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583: The case concerned a de facto couple purchasing land and building a house on it. Mr Dodds contributed 1/11 of the purchase price, whereas Mrs Muschinski contributed 10/11. The couple separated before the house was built. High Court held that equal division of property did not apply, and that a constructive trust arose in the favour of Mrs Muschinski based on the principle of unconscionability. High Court decision - it would be unfair if they equally split the house - remedy against the effects of uncounsiability •Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137: The case concerned a de facto couple, where the man bought land in his own name. The woman worked and handed her money to pay off the mortgage loan. The parties agreed the earning contributions were 55:45 in the favour of the man. The parties separated. The High Court held that a constructive trust could be created to give proportionate division of relationship property based on financial and non-financial contributions. Defacto couple —> Born gut trust - based on his financial/ non financial contribution - relatively new conept (defacto) courts have devised ways. Back then, defective cases weren’t necessarily heard by family court. -Estoppel •Resulting Trust •Proprietary estoppel may arise by the innocent party being induced by a representation of the guilty party or by the guilty party acquiescing to the detrimental reliance of the innocent party.43
Semester One 2019•Proprietary Estoppel by Representation - proprietary interest in a land. •A father offered a parcel of land to his son to build a house. The son built the house, and after the father had died, it was held that the son had a life interest through proprietary estoppel: Inwards v Baker  2 QB 29. There was a promise to the son - acted to his detrimental reliance •The local council led Mr Crabb to believe that he would be granted an easement to part of his land after a subdivision. Mr Crabb succeeded in his claim for proprietary estoppel: Crabb v Arun District Council  1 Ch 179. •Proprietary Estoppel by Acquiescence•Mr Westgate was found to have acquiesced to Mr High’s building of a garage on his land, because of Mr Westgate’s failure to raise any objections to Mr