Wilkins v Wilkins 2007 VSC 100 Australian Building Technical Solutions Pty Ltd

Wilkins v wilkins 2007 vsc 100 australian building

This preview shows page 28 - 34 out of 75 pages.

Wilkins v Wilkins [2007] VSC 100 Australian Building & Technical Solutions Pty Ltd v Boumelhem [2009] NSWSC 460 Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538
Image of page 28
Topic 12 – Resulting Trusts Equity & Trusts 70517 Dearing v Dearing [2009] NSWSC 1394 per Rein J Tyrone Dearing – registered proprietor of property at Bundeena – claimed needed to be in his name to obtain mortgage. Kay Dearing – mother – provided $269,000 & claimed RT. Nelson v Nelson – presumption of advancement can apply as between mother & adult child. “In my view the presumption of advancement has here been rebutted. I am not persuaded that the plaintiff intended to make a gift of the proceeds of the sale of her only real asset and to divest purchased from the proceeds. It follows that the plaintiff has made out her case for a resulting trust and it was agreed that if I were to so find, there would be no need to consider the plaintiff’s alternative contention that there ought be declared a constructive trust.”
Image of page 29
Topic 12 – Resulting Trusts Equity & Trusts 70517 Wilkins v Wilkins [2007] VSC 100 per Kaye J In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a registered proprietor of real estate is presumed to own the equitable interest in it. However, where a person purchases property, and places that property in the name of someone else, the law presumes that that person holds the property on a RT for the purchaser who paid the cost of acquisition of it. The presumption of a RT may be rebutted by showing that there is a relationship between the parties which gives rise to a countervailing presumption known as the “presumption of advancement”. In such a case, the presumption of the RT is, in effect, nullified.
Image of page 30
Topic 12 – Resulting Trusts Equity & Trusts 70517 C: PRESUMED RESULTING TRUSTS Rebuttal of presumptions The presumptions can be rebutted by evidence that the intention at the relevant time was not to make a gift: eg Black Uhlans Inc v New South Wales Crime Commission [2002] NSWSC 1060 Evidence of acts or declarations of the parties before or at the time of purchase, or so immediately thereafter as to constitute a part of the transaction: will be admissible for and against the actor or declarant. Subsequent acts and declarations: admissible only against a person, not in favour: Shepard v. Cartwright [1954] 3 All ER 649; [1955] AC 431
Image of page 31
Topic 12 – Resulting Trusts Equity & Trusts 70517 D : QUISTCLOSE TRUSTS - A SPECIES OF RESULTING TRUST ( or not ?) Barclays Bank v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1970] AC 567 NSW cases considering Quistclose trust: Shepard (in his capacity as registered trustee of the bankrupt estate of Wallman) v Mladenis [2011] NSWSC 1431 George v Webb [2011] NSWSC 1608 Raulfs v Fishy Bite Pty ltd [2012] NSWCA 135
Image of page 32
Topic 12 – Resulting Trusts Equity & Trusts 70517 Barclays Bank v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1970] AC 567 RR was indebted to BB & needed £209,719 to pay dividends to shareholders (serious financial difficulties).
Image of page 33
Image of page 34

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 75 pages?

  • One '14
  • Wills and trusts, Trust law, Express Trusts

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture