Muschinski v Dodds

Last updated

Muschinski v Dodds
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Decided 6 December 1985
Citation(s) [1985] HCA 78, (1985) 160  CLR  583
Case history
Prior action(s) (1982) 8 Fam LR 622
Appealed from NSW Court of Appeal
Case opinions
Majority Gibbs CJ, Mason & Deane JJ
Dissent Brennan & Dawson JJ

Muschinski v Dodds, [1] was a significant Australian court case, decided by the High Court of Australia on 6 December 1985. The case was part of a trend of High Court decisions to impose a constructive trust where it would be unconscionable for a legal owner of property to deny the beneficial interests of another. [2] In this case the Court held it would be unconscionable for Mr Dodds to retain a half share of the property without first accounting for the purchase price paid by Ms Muschinski. [1]

Australia Country in Oceania

Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia, is a sovereign country comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania and numerous smaller islands. It is the largest country in Oceania and the world's sixth-largest country by total area. The neighbouring countries are Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and East Timor to the north; the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu to the north-east; and New Zealand to the south-east. The population of 25 million is highly urbanised and heavily concentrated on the eastern seaboard. Australia's capital is Canberra, and its largest city is Sydney. The country's other major metropolitan areas are Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide.

Court judicial institution with the authority to resolve legal disputes

A court is any person or institution with authority to judge or adjudicate, often as a government institution, with the authority to adjudicate legal disputes between parties and carry out the administration of justice in civil, criminal, and administrative matters in accordance with the rule of law. In both common law and civil law legal systems, courts are the central means for dispute resolution, and it is generally understood that all people have an ability to bring their claims before a court. Similarly, the rights of those accused of a crime include the right to present a defense before a court.

A legal case is a dispute between opposing parties resolved by a court, or by some equivalent legal process. A legal case may be either civil or criminal law. In each legal case there is an accuser and one or more defendants.

Contents

Background

Facts

Ms Muschinski and Mr Dodds were in a de facto relationship . In 1976 they purchased a property in Picton as tenants in common, intending to develop and use the property. Ms Muschinski paid the purchase price while Mr Dodds was going to renovate the cottage and to pay for a kit house. The development did not go ahead and the couple separated. [2]

Picton, New South Wales Town in New South Wales, Australia

Picton is a small town in the Macarthur Region of New South Wales, Australia, in the Wollondilly Shire, in south-western Sydney. The town is located 80 kilometres south-west of Sydney, close to Camden and Campbelltown. It is also the administrative centre of Wollondilly Shire.

Prior actions

Ms Muschinski commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW seeking a declaration that she was the sole owner. Mr Dodds made a cross claim for the property to be sold and the proceeds to be divided equally. Waddell J dismissed Ms Muschinski's claim and stood the matter over to determine Mr Dodds' cross claim. Ms Muschinski appealed to the NSW Court of Appeal who dismissed the appeal. Hope JA, with whom Samuels and Mahoney JJA agreed, said:

Robert Marsden Hope Australian judge

Robert Marsden Hope, was a Justice of the New South Wales Court of Appeal and Royal Commissioner on three separate occasions, most notably the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security. As a judge Hope was known for his legal positivism and as a royal commissioner he "instilled a sense of impartiality".

Gordon Samuels Australian judge

Gordon Jacob Samuels was a British-Australian lawyer, judge and the Governor of New South Wales from 1996 to 2001.

I agree with his Honour's conclusion that (Ms Muschinski) intended to give (Mr Dodds) a one-half beneficial interest in the land, and that this intention was based on the assurances which (Mr Dodds) gave to her and not upon the fulfilment of those assurances. [3]

Judgment

The High Court of Australia found in favour of Ms Muschinski. The majority, Gibbs CJ, Mason & Deane JJ, held that the legal interests of the parties were subject to a constructive trust to (1) repayment any joint debts (2) repay each of their contributions and (3) any residue was to be distributed in equal shares. [1] [2]

Sir Harry Talbot Gibbs, GCMG, AC, KBE, QC was Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia from 1981 to 1987 after serving as a member of the High Court between 1970 and 1981. He was known as one of Australia's leading federalist judges although he presided over the High Court when decisions such as Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen in 1982 and Commonwealth v Tasmania expanded the powers of the Commonwealth at the expense of the states. Gibbs dissented from the majority verdict in both cases. On 3 August 2012, the Supreme Court of Queensland Library opened the Sir Harry Gibbs Legal Heritage Centre. It is the only legal heritage museum of its kind in Queensland and features a permanent exhibition dedicated to the life and legacy of Sir Harry Gibbs.

Chief Justice of Australia presiding justice of the High Court of Australia

The Chief Justice of Australia is the presiding justice of the High Court of Australia and the highest-ranking judicial officer in the Commonwealth of Australia. The incumbent is Susan Kiefel, who is the first woman to hold the position.

Sir Anthony Frank Mason, is an Australian judge who served as the ninth Chief Justice of Australia, in office from 1987 to 1995. He was first appointed to the High Court in 1972, having previously served on the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

Brennan & Dawson JJ dissented.

See also

Cases Referring to this Case

Cases Considered by this Case

Related Research Articles

Tortlaw in Australia consists of both common law and, to a lesser extent, legislation. A tort is a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract. Torts may be sued upon by private individuals against other private individuals to correct a form of conduct or wrong. A large number of torts exist, and they generally derive their legal status from the common law. Since a court can define an existing tort or even recognise new ones through the common law, tort law is sometimes regarded as limitless and adaptable to modern circumstances.

Fiduciary person who takes care of money for another person or organization

A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties. Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other assets for another person. One party, for example, a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, acts in a fiduciary capacity to another party, who, for example, has entrusted funds to the fiduciary for safekeeping or investment. Likewise, asset managers, including managers of pension plans, endowments, and other tax-exempt assets, are considered fiduciaries under applicable statutes and laws. In a fiduciary relationship, one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably vests confidence, good faith, reliance, and trust in another whose aid, advice, or protection is sought in some matter. In such a relation good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trusts.

A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence.

Australian constitutional law

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

Fixture (property law) legal concept

A fixture, as a legal concept, means any physical property that is permanently attached (fixed) to real property Property not affixed to real property is considered chattel property. Fixtures are treated as a part of real property, particularly in the case of a security interest. A classic example of a fixture is a building, which—in the absence of language to the contrary in a contract of sale—is considered part of the land itself and not a separate piece of property. Generally speaking the test for deciding whether an article is a fixture or a chattel turns on the purpose of attachment. If the purpose was to enhance the land the article is likely a fixture. If the article was affixed to enhance the use of the chattel itself, the article is likely a chattel.

The 1913 Australian Referendum was held on 31 May 1913. It contained six referendum questions and was held in conjunction with the 1913 federal election.

Unconscionability

Unconscionability is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.

Undue influence an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person

In jurisprudence, undue influence is an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person. This inequity in power between the parties can vitiate one party's consent as they are unable to freely exercise their independent will.

Section 51(i) of the Australian Constitution enables the Parliament of Australia to make laws about:

Section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution of Australia is a subsection of Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia, providing that the Commonwealth has the power to make laws with respect to "the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws." It is both a power and a constitutional guarantee of just compensation for property rights contingent on its exercise.

Australian contract law concerns the legal enforcement of promises that were made as part of a bargain freely entered into, forming a legal relationship called a contract. The common law in Australia is based on the inherited English contract law, with specific statutory modifications of principles in some areas and the development of the law through the decisions of Australian courts, which have diverged somewhat from the English courts especially since the 1980s. This article is an overview of the key concepts with particular reference to Australian statutes and decisions. See contract law for very general doctrines relating to contract law.

<i>Ha v New South Wales</i>

Ha v New South Wales is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise.

<i>Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd</i>

Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd, was an important case decided in the High Court of Australia on 6 August 1998. The case determined the circumstances under which it is unconscionable for a lender to enforce a transaction against a wife. It is considered a very important case in Australian Equity (law), as it continues to be the leading case in spouse-surety cases.

Proprietary estoppel

Proprietary estoppel is a legal claim, especially connected to English land law, which may arise in relation to rights to use the property of the owner, and may even be effective in connection with disputed transfers of ownership. Proprietary estoppel transfers rights if,

<i>Nudd v Taylor</i>

Nudd v Taylor, was a court case, decided in the Supreme Court of Queensland on 30 August 2000. The case concerned Australian Private International Law, specifically giving a Queensland authority to the application of the Moçambique rule.

<i>Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio</i>

Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio, is an Australian contract law and equity case, in which the legal issue of unconscionable dealing due to a lack of knowledge or education is examined and the implications as to the imbalance in bargaining power are considered.

<i>Barnes v Addy</i>

Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244 was a decision of the Court of Appeal in Chancery. It established that, in English trusts law, third parties could be liable for a breach of trust in two circumstances, referred to as the two 'limbs' of Barnes v Addy: knowing receipt and knowing assistance.

<i>New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> (1915)

New South Wales v Commonwealth, commonly known as the Wheat case, or more recently as the Inter-State Commission case, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1915 regarding judicial separation of power. It was also a leading case on the freedom of interstate trade and commerce that is guaranteed by section 92 of the Constitution.

<i>Louth v Diprose</i>

Louth v Diprose, is an Australian contract law and equity case, in which unconscionable conduct is considered.

Section 90 of the Constitution of Australia prohibits the States from imposing customs duties and of excise. The section bars the States from imposing any tax that would be considered to be of a customs or excise nature. While customs duties are easy to determine, the status of excise, as summarised in Ha v New South Wales, is that it consists of "taxes on the production, manufacture, sale or distribution of goods, whether of foreign or domestic origin." This effectively means that States are unable to impose sales taxes.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Muschinski v Dodds [1985] HCA 78 , (1985) 160 CLR 583(6 December 1985), High Court (Australia).
  2. 1 2 3 Hepburn, S (28 Feb 2006). Australian Principles of Property Law. Cavendish Publishing. ISBN   9781843142232 . Retrieved 19 June 2015.
  3. Muschinski v Dodds (1982) 8 Fam LR 622 at p 627, NSW Court of Appeal.
  4. Baumgartner v Baumgartner [1987] HCA 59 , (1987) 164 CLR 137(10 December 1987), High Court (Australia).
  5. Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 22 , (2007) 230 CLR 89(24 May 2007), High Court (Australia).
  6. Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio [1983] HCA 14 , (1983) 151 CLR 447(12 May 1983), High Court (Australia).