Black Uhlans Incorporated v New South Wales Crime Commission and Ors

(2002) 12 BPR 22; [2002] NSWSC 1060

Supreme Court of NSW

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Trusts and Trustees
2. › Express trust
3. › Existence of express trust
4. › Legal tests for recognising existence of express trust
5. › Whether express trust established on the evidence
1. Trusts and Trustees
2. › Resulting trust
3. › Payment of purchase price
4. › Proportionate beneficial interest
5. › Whether resulting trust arose from Club's contribution to purchase price
6. › Whether incidental costs included in 'purchase price'
7. › Whether presumption of resulting trust rebutted
1. Equity
2. › General principles and maxims
3. › Unclean hands
4. › Immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for
5. › Whether fraudulent procurement of mortgage loan disentitled plaintiff to enforce resulting trust
6. › Dering v Earl of Winchelsea test
1. Evidence
2. › Credibility
3. › Evidence of convictions
4. › Corroboration
5. › Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 178
6. › Evidence Act 1898 (NSW), s 178

Quick Take

Where the shares in which the purchase price was provided cannot be precisely determined, the resulting trust presumption operates only to the extent a party can demonstrate its actual contribution, with the balance of the beneficial interest remaining with the legal titleholder. The unclean hands doctrine does not defeat a resulting trust claim where the wrongful conduct (here, fraud on a mortgagee) has no immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for (the trust arising from the claimant's own untainted money). The two tests from Dering v Earl of Winchelsea — 'immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for' and 'depravity in a legal as well as moral sense' — are necessary but not sufficient conditions for the application of the unclean hands maxim.