Ardestani v Doss [2018] NSWSC 1084

Ardestani v Doss [2018] NSWSC 1084

The plaintiffs' claims failed because, although aspects of each side's evidence were consistent with their respective accounts, there were no contemporaneous documents evidencing the alleged agreement or tracing funds, the principal witnesses were not reliable, and the Court was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the alleged agreement existed or that the plaintiffs advanced $550,000 to the defendants. The derivative claims in trust, fiduciary duty, resulting trust, equitable contribution and restitution also failed because they depended on acceptance of the plaintiffs' factual account.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning Alleged Oral Property Investment Arrangement, Trust, Estoppel, Contract, Fiduciary Duty, Restitution and Related Equitable Relief / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed with costs; plaintiffs ordered to remove any caveat lodged by either plaintiff over the Beaumont Hills property.
Legal Topics
['alleged Oral Agreement to Contribute Funds to Purchase and Renovate Real Property' 'express Trust' 'resulting Trust' 'equitable Charge' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'restitution' 'onus of Proof' 'witness Credibility' 'caveat Removal']
['equity' 'trusts' 'estoppel' 'contract' 'real Property' 'civil Procedure'] ['alleged Oral Agreement to Contribute Funds to Purchase and Renovate Real Property' 'express Trust' 'resulting Trust' 'equitable Charge' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'restitution' 'onus of Proof' 'witness Credibility' 'caveat Removal']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings Concerning Alleged Oral Property Investment Arrangement, Trust, Estoppel, Contract, Fiduciary Duty, Restitution and Related Equitable Relief / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the parties made the alleged oral agreement in about late April 2010 for the plaintiffs to contribute funds to the purchase and renovation of the Kellyville property and share in profits on sale.' 'Whether the plaintiffs advanced sums totalling $550,000 to the defendants for the purchase and renovation of the Kellyville property.' 'Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to relief based on contract, express trust, resulting trust, estoppel, breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, equitable contribution, restitution or an equitable charge over the Beaumont Hills property.' "Whether the competing witness accounts and financial records established the plaintiffs' case on the balance of probabilities."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' claims failed because, although aspects of each side's evidence were consistent with their respective accounts, there were no contemporaneous documents evidencing the alleged agreement or tracing funds, the principal witnesses were not reliable, and the Court was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the alleged agreement existed or that the plaintiffs advanced $550,000 to the defendants. The derivative claims in trust, fiduciary duty, resulting trust, equitable contribution and restitution also failed because they depended on acceptance of the plaintiffs' factual account.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed with costs; plaintiffs ordered to remove any caveat lodged by either plaintiff over the Beaumont Hills property.

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the plaintiffs' claim with costs." 'Order that the plaintiffs cause to be removed any caveat lodged under the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) by the first plaintiff or the second plaintiff in relation to the land situated at 11 Vivaldi Place, Beaumont Hills being lot 6 of DP1023156.']