Tonna v Mendonca [2019] NSWSC 1849

Tonna v Mendonca [2019] NSWSC 1849

There was no binding enforceable agreement or express trust, but a resulting trust arose as Dr Mendonca held the legal title to the Galston Property on trust for herself and the Tonnas, in proportions reflecting each party’s contribution to the purchase price. The parties' intention at acquisition, ascertained objectively, was not that Dr Mendonca alone have the unconditional beneficial interest, and the evidence does not support a gift of contributions to her. There was insufficient certainty or documentation for an express trust or specifically enforceable constructive trust. With respect to tenancy, there was insufficient evidence of a binding tenancy agreement. Claims against Mr...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Final Judgment With Reasons
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs in part; declaration of resulting trust; dismissal of some claims; orders as specified.
Legal Topics
['resulting Trusts' 'agency' 'express Trusts' 'constructive Trusts' 'unjust Enrichment' 'residential Tenancy' 'fiduciary Duties']
['equity' 'trusts' 'contracts'] ['resulting Trusts' 'agency' 'express Trusts' 'constructive Trusts' 'unjust Enrichment' 'residential Tenancy' 'fiduciary Duties']

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

Principal Judgment / Final Judgment With Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Dr Mendonca held the Galston Property on trust for Mr and Mrs Tonna' 'Whether there was a binding trust agreement or constructive trust' 'Whether a resulting trust arose' 'Whether Mr Mendonca acted as agent for Dr Mendonca' 'Liability for breach of fiduciary duty/trustee duty' 'Unjust enrichment claims' 'Genuineness and enforceability of tenancy agreement']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no binding enforceable agreement or express trust, but a resulting trust arose as Dr Mendonca held the legal title to the Galston Property on trust for herself and the Tonnas, in proportions reflecting each party’s contribution to the purchase price. The parties' intention at acquisition, ascertained objectively, was not that Dr Mendonca alone have the unconditional beneficial interest, and the evidence does not support a gift of contributions to her. There was insufficient certainty or documentation for an express trust or specifically enforceable constructive trust. With respect to tenancy, there was insufficient evidence of a binding tenancy agreement. Claims against Mr...

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs in part; declaration of resulting trust; dismissal of some claims; orders as specified.

Orders

  • ['Declare the first defendant holds the legal title to the Galston Property on resulting trust for herself and the plaintiffs in proportion to their respective contributions to the purchase price (precise proportions to be specified following further submissions/orders on legal costs of conveyancing).' "Order the...