Brown v George [1999] FCA 285

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Brown v George [1999] FCA 285

TRUSTS – constructive trusts – claim that financial and non-financial contributions made during period of co-habitation gave rise to a constructive trust – whether unconscionable for respondent to retain benefit of property acquired during de facto relationship.

Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583 considered Baumgartner v. Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137 considered Mallet v. Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605 considered

Margaret Ann Napier Brown v James William George AG 96 OF 1998 MILES, MATHEWS AND LEHANE JJ 25 MARCH 1999 CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY AG 96 OF 1998

DISTRICT REGISTRY

On Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

BETWEEN: MARGARET ANN NAPIER BROWN

Appellant

AND: JAMES WILLIAM GEORGE

Respondent

JUDGES: MILES, MATHEWS AND LEHANE JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 25 MARCH 1998

WHERE MADE: CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY AG 96 OF 1998

DISTRICT REGISTRY

On Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

BETWEEN: MARGARET ANN NAPIER BROWN

Appellant

AND: JAMES WILLIAM GEORGE

Respondent

JUDGES: MILES, MATHEWS AND LEHANE JJ

DATE: 25 MARCH 1999

PLACE: CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT: 1 This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court (Gallop J) in favour of the defendant. The parties had cohabited for approximately 13 years, and the plaintiff had sought a declaration that one‑third of the defendant's legal interest in assets which he accumulated during the period of their cohabitation was held in trust for her. The basis of the claim was that, having regard to the significant financial and non‑financial contribution made by the plaintiff during that period, a constructive trust had been created in her favour. 2 At the hearing in the Supreme Court the appellant was represented by solicitor and counsel. The respondent represented himself. The trial judge, in a lengthy judgment, made a number of findings of fact, most of them adverse to the appellant. These findings were summarised in the appellant's written submissions as follows: