Anderson v McPHERSON [No 2]

[2012] WASC 19

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Trusts
2. › Resulting trusts
3. › Presumption of resulting trust
4. › Contributions to purchase price
5. › Whether presumption rebutted by evidence of objective intention that transferee enjoy benefit of interest
1. Trusts
2. › Resulting trusts
3. › Presumption of advancement
4. › Relationships to which presumption applies
5. › Whether presumption applies to daughter-in-law where parents-in-law stand in loco parentis
1. Equity
2. › Equitable compensation
3. › Minimum equity principle
4. › Whether minimum equity principle provides standalone basis for equitable compensation absent identified cause of action
5. › Whether minimum equity principle is part of Australian law
1. Restitution
2. › Failure of consideration
3. › Meaning of consideration in restitutionary context
4. › Objective basis or condition for payments
5. › Whether restitutionary relief inconsistent with contractual rights

Quick Take

The presumption of advancement does not extend to the relationship between parents-in-law and a daughter-in-law unless the parents-in-law stood in loco parentis. The 'minimum equity' principle derived from estoppel cases does not provide a standalone basis for equitable compensation absent an identified cause of action, and there is real doubt whether the principle exists in Australian law at all following Giumelli v Giumelli. Restitutionary relief for failure of consideration cannot be awarded where it would be inconsistent with the parties' contractual rights.