Michael May v Lila Costaras

2025/00129141

EQUITY – the appellant and respondent are registered as proprietors land in Maryborough in Queensland (Scott St Property) – the appellant claimed that the respondent held her interest in the Scott St Property on trust for him on the basis that he purchased solely with his own funds the Scott St Property in their joint names conditional upon a marriage which ultimately did not occur – the appellant contended that the Court ought disregard the respondent’s earlier contribution to the renovation of another property (Cumberland Reach Property) held in his name, and the respondent’s involvement in the purchase of the Scott St Property – by contrast, the respondent contended that, inter alia, the Scott St Property was purchased in co-ownership on the basis that it was an investment for both of them, and as recompense for her earlier contribution to renovation of the Cumberland Reach Property – the primary judge found that the parties acquired the Scott St Property for a common purpose (as a joint investment) and, allowing for past, present and prospective contributions to their common wealth, intended that their common purpose would be pursued, indefinitely, for their joint benefit – the primary judge found that the appellant, in taking possession of the Scott St Property upon completion and thereafter excluding the respondent, relieved her of any obligation to contribute further to the Scott St Property – however, the primary judge found that the respondent did positively contribute to the common wealth of the parties through her financial and non-financial contributions to the Cumberland Reach Property, and that she has been denied the opportunity to benefit from enjoyment of the Scott St Property and the realisation of her investment in it – ultimately, the primary judge held that the Scott St Property is held on constructive trust for both parties, with two-thirds held for the appellant and one third for the respondent – whether primary judge erred in not finding the respondent’s whole interest held on trust for benefit of appellant – whether primary judge erred in failing to make findings as to basis of constructive trust – whether primary judge erred in failing to find that the legal interests were held on constructive trust to pay respective contributions – whether primary judge erred in findings of credit.