Zhang v Metcalf; Metcalf v Zhang [2020] NSWCA 228

Zhang v Metcalf; Metcalf v Zhang [2020] NSWCA 228

The presumption of a resulting trust regarding the Alexandria property was rebutted by direct evidence of the contemporaneous deed, and contributions to loan repayments were equal except for Ms Zhang's $60,000 advance, warranting equal division of proceeds. The Waterloo property beneficial interests were determined by contributions, but the trial judge's error granting Ms Zhang a 78% share was not challenged by Metcalf on appeal, leading to retention of the order. No error was shown regarding the exercise of discretion in the costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal From Equity Proceedings / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; otherwise dismissed. Cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['resulting Trusts' 'constructive Trusts' 'division of Proceeds' 'beneficial Ownership' 'de Facto Relationships' 'costs Orders']
['equity' 'property Law'] ['resulting Trusts' 'constructive Trusts' 'division of Proceeds' 'beneficial Ownership' 'de Facto Relationships' 'costs Orders']

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

Appeal and Cross Appeal From Equity Proceedings / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Alexandria property was beneficially owned by Ms Zhang and Mr Metcalf equally' 'Whether there was a trust of the Waterloo property based on proportionate contributions' "Whether the primary judge erred in ordering Ms Zhang to pay 30 per cent of Mr Metcalf's costs"]

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption of a resulting trust regarding the Alexandria property was rebutted by direct evidence of the contemporaneous deed, and contributions to loan repayments were equal except for Ms Zhang's $60,000 advance, warranting equal division of proceeds. The Waterloo property beneficial interests were determined by contributions, but the trial judge's error granting Ms Zhang a 78% share was not challenged by Metcalf on appeal, leading to retention of the order. No error was shown regarding the exercise of discretion in the costs order.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; otherwise dismissed. Cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Vary primary judge's orders to reflect corrected figures: $422,709 and $443,010.95." 'Declare Plaintiff entitled to $422,709 on claim for net proceeds; Defendant entitled to $4,774.12 for benefits from $60,000 advance.' 'Judgment for Plaintiff against Defendant for $443,010.95, comprising $417,934.88 plus...