Mendonca v Tonna [2020] NSWCA 196

Mendonca v Tonna [2020] NSWCA 196

The primary judge did not err in concluding that the Galston property was held on resulting trust because the respondents made contributions to its acquisition and the evidence did not rebut the presumption that those contributions gave rise to beneficial interests. The primary judge also did not err in rejecting the alleged binding residential tenancy agreement because the conclusion was grounded in contemporaneous documents, probabilities and rejection of the appellant's evidence. The costs discretion was properly exercised because the respondents succeeded in substance and the issues were not discrete or separable so as to justify departing from the ordinary rule that costs follow the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Concerning Resulting Trust, Alleged Residential Tenancy Agreement and Costs / Appeal From Declarations and Orders of the Supreme Court of New South Wales; Application to Adduce Further Evidence on Appeal
Outcome
Appellant's amended notice of motion filed 1 July 2020 dismissed; appeal dismissed; appellant to pay respondents' costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
['purchase Money Resulting Trust' 'presumption of Resulting Trust' 'residential Tenancy Agreement' 'further Evidence on Appeal' 'party/party Costs' 'costs Follow the Event']
['equity' 'trusts' 'landlord and Tenant' 'costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['purchase Money Resulting Trust' 'presumption of Resulting Trust' 'residential Tenancy Agreement' 'further Evidence on Appeal' 'party/party Costs' 'costs Follow the Event']

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

Civil Appeal Concerning Resulting Trust, Alleged Residential Tenancy Agreement and Costs / Appeal From Declarations and Orders of the Supreme Court of New South Wales; Application to Adduce Further Evidence on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in finding there was a resulting trust of the Galston property based on contributions of the appellant and respondents to its purchase' "Whether the primary judge erred in not being satisfied that the respondents' occupation of the Galston property was governed by a residential tenancy agreement" "Whether the primary judge erred in ordering that the appellant pay the respondents' costs of the claims between them on the ordinary basis" 'Whether special grounds justified admitting further evidence on appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge did not err in concluding that the Galston property was held on resulting trust because the respondents made contributions to its acquisition and the evidence did not rebut the presumption that those contributions gave rise to beneficial interests. The primary judge also did not err in rejecting the alleged binding residential tenancy agreement because the conclusion was grounded in contemporaneous documents, probabilities and rejection of the appellant's evidence. The costs discretion was properly exercised because the respondents succeeded in substance and the issues were not discrete or separable so as to justify departing from the ordinary rule that costs follow the...

Court Disposition

Appellant's amended notice of motion filed 1 July 2020 dismissed; appeal dismissed; appellant to pay respondents' costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • ["Appellant's amended notice of motion filed 1 July 2020 dismissed." 'Appeal dismissed.' "Appellant pay respondents' costs of the appeal."]