| 词条 | Muschinski v Dodds |
| 释义 |
| name = Muschinski v Dodds | court = High Court of Australia | date decided = 6 December 1985 | full name = | citations = {{cite AustLII|HCA|78|1985|parallelcite=(1985) 160 CLR 583}} | judges = | prior actions = (1982) 8 {{abbr|Fam LR|Family Law Reports}} 622 | appealed from = NSW Court of Appeal | opinions = | Majority = Gibbs CJ, Mason & Deane JJ | dissenting = Brennan & Dawson JJ | subsequent actions = }}Muschinski v Dodds,[1] was a significant Australian court case, decided by the High Court of Australia on 6 December 1985. The case was part of a trend of High Court decisions to impose a constructive trust where it would be unconscionable for a legal owner of property to deny the beneficial interests of another.[2] In this case the Court held it would be unconscionable for Mr Dodds to retain a half share of the property without first accounting for the purchase price paid by Ms Muschinski.[1] BackgroundFactsMs Muschinski and Mr Dodds were in a de facto relationship. In 1976 they purchased a property in Picton as tenants in common, intending to develop and use the property. Ms Muschinski paid the purchase price while Mr Dodds was going to renovate the cottage and to pay for a kit house. The development did not go ahead and the couple separated.[2] Prior actionsMs Muschinski commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW seeking a declaration that she was the sole owner. Mr Dodds made a cross claim for the property to be sold and the proceeds to be divided equally. Waddell J dismissed Ms Muschinski's claim and stood the matter over to determine Mr Dodds' cross claim. Ms Muschinski appealed to the NSW Court of Appeal who dismissed the appeal. Hope JA, with whom Samuels and Mahoney {{abbr|JJA|Judges of Appeal}} agreed, said: I agree with his Honour's conclusion that (Ms Muschinski) intended to give (Mr Dodds) a one-half beneficial interest in the land, and that this intention was based on the assurances which (Mr Dodds) gave to her and not upon the fulfilment of those assurances.[3] JudgmentThe High Court of Australia found in favour of Ms Muschinski. The majority, Gibbs CJ, Mason & Deane JJ, held that the legal interests of the parties were subject to a constructive trust to (1) repayment any joint debts (2) repay each of their contributions and (3) any residue was to be distributed in equal shares.[1][2] Brennan & Dawson JJ dissented. See also===Cases Referring to this Case===
===Cases Considered by this Case===
References1. ^1 2 {{cite AustLII|HCA|78|1985|litigants=Muschinski v Dodds |parallelcite=(1985) 160 CLR 583 |courtname=auto |date=6 December 1985}}. 2. ^1 2 {{cite book|last=Hepburn |first=S |title=Australian Principles of Property Law |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=n5C_kGOmJ9EC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98#v=onepage&q&f=false |accessdate=19 June 2015 |date=28 Feb 2006 |publisher=Cavendish Publishing |isbn=9781843142232}} 3. ^Muschinski v Dodds (1982) 8 {{abbr|Fam LR|Family Law Reports}} 622 at p 627, NSW Court of Appeal. 4. ^{{cite AustLII|HCA|59|1987|litigants=Baumgartner v Baumgartner |parallelcite=(1987) 164 CLR 137 |courtname=auto |date=10 December 1987}}. 5. ^{{cite AustLII|HCA|22|2007|litigants=Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd |parallelcite=(2007) 230 CLR 89 |courtname=auto |date=24 May 2007}}. 6. ^{{cite AustLII|HCA|14|1983|litigants=Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio |parallelcite=(1983) 151 CLR 447 |courtname=auto |date=12 May 1983}}. External links
3 : Property case law|Equity (law)|High Court of Australia cases |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。