Peterson v Hottes

[2012] QCA 292

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Equity
2. › Trusts and Trustees
3. › Constructive Trusts
4. › Joint endeavour
5. › Failure of substratum of joint relationship
6. › Whether constructive trust or monetary compensation appropriate remedy
7. › Whether unconscionable for defendant to retain full beneficial interest including accretion in value
1. Equity
2. › Trusts and Trustees
3. › Constructive Trusts
4. › Remedial constructive trust
5. › Relevance of parties' intentions
6. › Whether constructive trust may be imposed regardless of actual or presumed agreement or intention
1. Appeal
2. › General Civil Appeal
3. › Findings of fact
4. › Assessment of witness credibility
5. › Whether primary judge failed to give due regard to evidence of witness
6. › Whether adequate reasons given

Quick Take

Where a party contributes funds to the purchase of property pursuant to a joint endeavour that subsequently fails, an order for repayment of the monetary contribution alone may be insufficient to address the unconscionability if it leaves the other party with the full benefit of any accretion in value. A constructive trust proportionate to contributions may be imposed regardless of the parties' intentions as to legal title. The absence of valuation evidence does not preclude the imposition of a constructive trust.

Case Details

Citation[2012] QCA 292

CourtQCA

JurisdictionQueensland

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.

Relies on6

2012Peterson v HottesQSC 50
2005Swettenham v WildQCA 264
1998Bathurst City Council v PWC Properties Pty LtdHCA 59
1996Turner v DunneQCA 272
and 2 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in