The Court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that a common intention constructive trust arose from an alleged oral agreement for the defendant to hold property on trust, finding on the evidence that the pivotal conversation did not occur. The Court held that the plaintiffs' post-contractual conduct — including executing a lease, receiving Centrelink rental assistance, failing to inquire about the mortgage, and 15 years of inaction — was inconsistent with the alleged agreement and instead consistent with a standard landlord-tenant relationship. Even had the conversation been proved, the Court indicated it would have refused equitable relief on the basis of laches (knowledge of the defendant's repudiation from 2011 with no steps taken), unclean hands (concealment of the true nature of the transaction from the trustee-in-bankruptcy), inconsistency with the written contract for sale per Hoyt's v Spencer, and the unresolved complications of the plaintiffs' bankruptcies. The Court also held it lacked power to terminate the residential tenancy agreement or order possession, remitting those questions to NCAT.
The full text is available to signed-in members.