Lam v Luu (No 2) [2008] NSWSC 127

Lam v Luu (No 2) [2008] NSWSC 127

Mr Lam failed to establish that the $34,000 payment to Mr Luu's mortgagee was made on Ms Luu's behalf or as a contribution to the Smithfield property. The Court found that Mr Luu had lent Mr Lam $35,000 and the $34,000 payment reduced that debt. Mr Lam therefore did not prove contribution in accordance with the 6 March 2004 agreement; the two $20,000 payments into the joint account did not create a resulting trust, and no constructive trust interest was established. Ms Luu was entitled to proceed to purchase the property in her own right.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding Concerning Alleged Resulting or Constructive Trust Over Property / Principal Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Amended summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['resulting Trust' 'constructive Trust' 'contribution to Purchase Price' 'agreement to Purchase Property' 'jones V Dunkel Inference']
['equity' 'property Law'] ['resulting Trust' 'constructive Trust' 'contribution to Purchase Price' 'agreement to Purchase Property' 'jones V Dunkel Inference']

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 Proceeding Concerning Alleged Resulting or Constructive Trust Over Property / Principal Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Smithfield property was held by Ms Luu on a resulting or constructive trust in equal shares for Mr Lam and Ms Luu.' 'Whether Mr Lam contributed to the purchase of the property in accordance with the agreement of 6 March 2004.' "Whether the $34,000 payment to Mr Luu's mortgagee was made on Ms Luu's instructions as a contribution to the property purchase." "Whether, on Mr Lam's failure to contribute, Ms Luu was entitled to purchase the Smithfield property in her own right."]

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Lam failed to establish that the $34,000 payment to Mr Luu's mortgagee was made on Ms Luu's behalf or as a contribution to the Smithfield property. The Court found that Mr Luu had lent Mr Lam $35,000 and the $34,000 payment reduced that debt. Mr Lam therefore did not prove contribution in accordance with the 6 March 2004 agreement; the two $20,000 payments into the joint account did not create a resulting trust, and no constructive trust interest was established. Ms Luu was entitled to proceed to purchase the property in her own right.

Court Disposition

Amended summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The amended summons is dismissed.' "Mr Lam must pay Ms Luu's costs." 'The summons against Mr Luu was dismissed at trial after Mr Lam did not proceed against him.']