THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE v MARIE KUKULA [1990] NSWCA 174

THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE v MARIE KUKULA [1990] NSWCA 174

The respondent was not entitled to any proprietary interest or equitable charge as there was no direct contribution to acquisition or improvement of the deceased’s farm, no disproportionate contribution of work, no binding promise of marriage, no appropriate link between services and asset, and claims in contract...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: The Public Trustee; Respondent: Marie Kukula
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 1990
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed; respondent's suit dismissed
Legal Topics
De Facto Relationships, Constructive Trust, Proprietary Estoppel, Promise of Marriage, Equitable Charge, Restitution, Unjust Enrichment
Equity De Facto Relationships Constructive Trust Proprietary Estoppel Promise of Marriage Equitable Charge Restitution Unjust Enrichment

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Public Trustee

Appellant

Marie Kukula

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent has established a basis for imposition of a constructive trust or proprietary estoppel in relation to the deceased’s farm
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to an equitable charge for the value of her work on the deceased's farm

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was not entitled to any proprietary interest or equitable charge as there was no direct contribution to acquisition or improvement of the deceased’s farm, no disproportionate contribution of work, no binding promise of marriage, no appropriate link between services and asset, and claims in contract and quantum meruit were abandoned. The principles of constructive trust and proprietary estoppel did not apply to the facts and the equitable charge for value of work could not be supported.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; respondent's suit dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Order of Equity Division set aside.