Cadd v Cadd [1909] HCA 59

Cadd v Cadd [1909] HCA 59

The evidence, even if the pivotal conversation ('I'll buy the place for you') is accepted as accurately recalled, was ambiguous and equally consistent with a proposed contract of sale rather than a relationship of agency or trust; the deeds and conduct thereafter supported the inference of arm's length dealings, not a trust. The onus on the plaintiff to prove a trust was not discharged on the balance of probabilities. As such, the action failed and should be dismissed, the counterclaim for possession allowed, and the Supreme Court judgment reversed.

Parties
Appellant; Defendant: Henry Cadd; Respondent; Plaintiff: William Cadd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 1909
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment for defendant. Counterclaim for possession of land allowed. Claim for mesne profits waived.
Legal Topics
Resulting Trusts, Agency in Land Transactions, Statute of Frauds, Specific Performance
Equity Property Law Resulting Trusts Agency in Land Transactions Statute of Frauds Specific Performance

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Cadd

Appellant; Defendant

William Cadd

Respondent; Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence established a relationship of principal and agent or trustee and cestui que trust between the parties in respect of the purchase of leasehold land from Kitto by the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether a trust in favour of the plaintiff could be established based on oral testimony and the surrounding evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the transaction was in substance a contract of sale or one of agency.

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence, even if the pivotal conversation ('I'll buy the place for you') is accepted as accurately recalled, was ambiguous and equally consistent with a proposed contract of sale rather than a relationship of agency or trust; the deeds and conduct thereafter supported the inference of arm's length dealings, not a trust. The onus on the plaintiff to prove a trust was not discharged on the balance of probabilities. As such, the action failed and should be dismissed, the counterclaim for possession allowed, and the Supreme Court judgment reversed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment for defendant. Counterclaim for possession of land allowed. Claim for mesne profits waived.

Orders

  • Judgment appealed from discharged.
  • Judgment for the defendant on the claim.