Fedorow v Fedorow

[2011] ACTCA 10

ACT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Trusts
2. › Resulting trust
3. › Purchase of property as joint tenants
4. › Unequal contributions to purchase price
5. › Whether property held on trust as tenants in common in proportionate shares
6. › Whether intangible contribution (opportunity to purchase) constitutes contribution to purchase price
7. › Land Titles Act 1925 (ACT), ss 54, 55
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal from factual findings and conclusions
3. › Function of appellate court
4. › Inferences of fact
5. › Whether appellate court entitled to set aside inferences drawn by trial judge from undisputed or established facts
6. › Whether Master's conclusions inconsistent with his own factual findings

Quick Take

An intangible contribution such as providing the opportunity to purchase a property on favourable terms (e.g., through an existing tenancy) is not a contribution to the purchase price for the purposes of a resulting trust under [name withheld] v [name withheld]. Where one joint tenant pays the deposit and the other's only contribution is liability under the mortgage, the resulting trust shares are proportionate to those tangible contributions. The fact that title is placed in joint names does not rebut the presumption of a resulting trust with proportionate shares.

Case Details

Citation[2011] ACTCA 10

CourtACTCA

JurisdictionAustralian Capital Territory

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.

Cited by1

2015B & T Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd v Construction Occupations Registrar and AnorACTCA 7

Relies on6

2003Fox v PercyHCA 22
1986Delehunt v CarmodyHCA 67
1984Calverley v GreenHCA 81
1979Warren v CoombesHCA 9
and 2 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in