McGregor v Nicol [2003] NSWSC 332

McGregor v Nicol [2003] NSWSC 332

The plaintiffs provided the substantial purchase and construction moneys, Robert contributed no funds, no presumption of advancement arose between siblings, and the evidence did not show that the plaintiffs intended to give Robert the capital value or beneficial ownership of the property. The presumption of resulting trust arising from the plaintiffs' financial contributions was therefore not rebutted, so the plaintiffs were entitled to possession and the cross-claim failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Proceeding for Possession With Cross Claim for Declarations Concerning Beneficial Ownership of Land / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiffs entitled to an order for possession; cross-claim dismissed; defendant to pay costs as specified.
Legal Topics
['resulting Trust' 'presumption of Advancement' 'siblings' 'beneficial Interest in Land' 'possession of Premises']
['equity' 'trusts' 'property Law'] ['resulting Trust' 'presumption of Advancement' 'siblings' 'beneficial Interest in Land' 'possession of Premises']

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 Division Proceeding for Possession With Cross Claim for Declarations Concerning Beneficial Ownership of Land / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs, who provided the purchase and construction moneys for the San Remo property, held the legal title on resulting trust for Robert's estate." 'Whether any presumption of advancement applied as between the plaintiffs and their brother Robert.' 'Whether the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted by evidence that the plaintiffs intended to confer a beneficial interest on Robert.' "Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to possession and whether the defendant's cross-claim should be dismissed."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs provided the substantial purchase and construction moneys, Robert contributed no funds, no presumption of advancement arose between siblings, and the evidence did not show that the plaintiffs intended to give Robert the capital value or beneficial ownership of the property. The presumption of resulting trust arising from the plaintiffs' financial contributions was therefore not rebutted, so the plaintiffs were entitled to possession and the cross-claim failed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs entitled to an order for possession; cross-claim dismissed; defendant to pay costs as specified.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiffs are entitled to an order for possession.' 'The defendant in her personal capacity should pay the costs of the claim.' 'The cross-claim should be dismissed.' "The defendant, as executrix of Robert's estate, should pay the costs of the cross-claim." 'Counsel should bring in short minutes within seven...