Flowchart of Constructive Trusts and relevant Key Cases PDF

Preview

Summary

Flowchart of Constructive Trusts and relevant Key Cases...

Description

intention of parties may be relevant but not essential (Grefeld v Grefeld)

Constructive Trusts (imposed by court)

not all fiduciary duties apply to trustee (Lonrho v Fayed) not always subject to requirement of certainty of subject (Westdeutche or Giumelli)

Insitutional (property institution) Arises at time of conduct (Westdeutsch) - created by court to operate retrospectively from relevant conduct (Parsons v McBain) - even if effect defeats unsecured creditors (Parsons v McBain)

Applicable situations:

1. incomplete contract for sale of property (Lysaght v Edwards) > constructive trust from date of contract where vendor = trustee > equitable maxim: equity regards done that which ought to have been done - Elements per Lysaght v Edwards: 1. Interest must be one that equity will protect (ie specific performance or injunction available) 2. Must be unconditional obligation to transfer property – if interest is subject to condition being satisfied (which is not yet satisfied) then no interest has arisen unless parties intended otherwise - applies to both personal and real property (Re Wait [1927])

2. equitable estoppel (giumelli v Giumelli) > trust may be imposed as a remedy if equitable estoppel elements are made out

3. breach of confidence

4. breach of fiduciary duty > remedy if elements satisfied (Muschinski v Dodds) > or equitable compensation or account of profits (Worman International v Dwyer)

Remedial (remedy) Imposed by the court: to remedy unconscionable behaviour – where unconscionable to assert title or deny beneficial interest: Muschinki v Dodds; Baumgartner v Baumgartner

Remedial Constructive Trust: Unconscionable assertion of title Elements as outlined in Muschinki v Dodds

Incl personal and real property: Stavrianakos v State of WA (weekly lotto ticket deemed joint venture and winnings held on constructive trust)

A joint relationship or venture - purchase of property together with plan to create arts & crafts centre and build home. No intention for assets to remain where they lie should venture fail (M v D) - mere fact of living together does not give rise to joint venture (Bamess v WA)

Termination without attributable blame - Project not realised – no council approval (M v D) - not who is at greater fault of venture demise (Henderson v Miles) - termination due to wrongful conduct of party seeking const. trust may impact whether retention by other party is unconscionable (Australian Building and Technical Solutions v Boumelhem)

Valuable contributions by plaintiff (incl pooling of assets) - M provided purchase money ($25k) / D was to pay construction & improvement costs (est. $9k) but in the end only contributed $2.5k. (M v D) - contributions made where it was not intended that the other party should keep them (Turner v Dunne) - Non-financial contrib. must have actually helped through acquisition or improvement of property (Brown v George)

Unconscionable for the contributions to be retained by legal title holder - D sought 50% share in property. Unconscionable to assert such title given the contributions made by M – unconscionable to deny interests in contributions made (M v D) - retention of benefits from non-financial contributions not unconscionable if remuneration or other form of consideration provided (Engwirda v Engwirda)

Arises at date of court order and granted at court discretion (Re Polly Peck Int)

common intention on property being held in a particular way where there is no formal agreement (Jin v Yang [2008])

Common Intention Constructive Remedial Trust

Proof of common intention: - existence either actual or inferred (Shepherd v Doolan) - includes representations made at time - repressentations after event only relevant if against interest being disputed (Charles Marshall v Grimsley) - or inferred by conduct (Oxley v Hiscock) eg. financial contributions - such as mortgage repayments (Shepherd v Doolan)

Detriment: - party acted to their detriment in reliance of agreement (Bannister v Bannister) - must flow from common intention (Green v Green) - Allen v Snyder > common intention that beneficial interest would develop on marriage or death on Snyder & not while defacto spouse > detriment not resultant of a common intention - disappointment does not equate to detriment (Re Lofthouse)

Fraudulent of legal owner to deny interest - Evans v Braddock - unconscionable conduct (Shepherd v Doolan) - denial unconscientious (Clout v Markwell)

Elements as outlined in Grant v Grant...