LI v DENG [2010] NSWCA 266

LI v DENG [2010] NSWCA 266

The trial judge's rejection of the daughter's evidence about the alleged $5,000 and $72,000 payments was materially affected by errors: the supposed admission that she had no savings in March 1997 was not supported by the transcript, and the mother's evidence about the source and handling of the United States currency used for the term deposit was inconsistent and glaringly improbable. Because the trial judge relied on those flawed findings to reject the daughter's evidence about the disputed conversations necessary for equitable relief, the findings could not stand and the proceedings had to be remitted for a new trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Gzell J in the Supreme Court Equity Division Dismissing an Equitable Claim to an Interest in Residential Property
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment set aside; proceedings remitted for re-hearing.
Legal Topics
['resulting Trust' 'constructive Trust' 'proprietary Estoppel' 'credibility Findings' 'errors in Fact Finding' 'procedural Fairness']
['equity' 'appellate Procedure' 'property Law'] ['resulting Trust' 'constructive Trust' 'proprietary Estoppel' 'credibility Findings' 'errors in Fact Finding' 'procedural Fairness']

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 / Appeal From Judgment of Gzell J in the Supreme Court Equity Division Dismissing an Equitable Claim to an Interest in Residential Property

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's findings rejecting the daughter's evidence about payments of $72,000 and $5,000 were affected by error." "Whether the trial judge erred in preferring the mother's evidence about the source of funds used for the term deposit." 'Whether the errors in fact-finding required appellate intervention and a new trial.' 'Whether the Court of Appeal should substitute findings in favour of the daughter or remit the proceedings for re-hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's rejection of the daughter's evidence about the alleged $5,000 and $72,000 payments was materially affected by errors: the supposed admission that she had no savings in March 1997 was not supported by the transcript, and the mother's evidence about the source and handling of the United States currency used for the term deposit was inconsistent and glaringly improbable. Because the trial judge relied on those flawed findings to reject the daughter's evidence about the disputed conversations necessary for equitable relief, the findings could not stand and the proceedings had to be remitted for a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment set aside; proceedings remitted for re-hearing.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs;' 'Judgment of Gzell J of 28 August 2009 set aside;' 'Proceedings remitted to the Equity Division for re-hearing.' 'The oral evidence given at the first trial may be read at the new trial from the transcript;' 'The respondent to have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act.']