Hyams; ex parte Andrew [1979] FCA 154

Hyams; ex parte Andrew [1979] FCA 154

The house (and therefore the proceeds) was held on trust by the bankrupt for the first respondent despite being registered in the bankrupt's name, as all mortgage repayments and the purchase were funded by the respondent (or associated company), and the circumstances demonstrated the intention that the property belongs to the first respondent both at law and equity. The competing claims of the bankrupt were not reliable or supported by evidence.

Parties
Applicant: William Edward Andrew; First Respondent: Liberty Mortgage Underwriters (S.A.) Pty. Limited; Second Respondents: D.J. Evans (a male) and P.D. Murray (a male); Bankrupt: Ronald Barnett Hyams
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 1979
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Application / Application for Declarations/orders
Outcome
Application dismissed in favour of first respondent. Declarations and orders made as consented.
Legal Topics
Divisible Property in Bankruptcy, Resulting Trusts
Bankruptcy Law Trusts Law Divisible Property in Bankruptcy Resulting Trusts

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Edward Andrew

Applicant

Liberty Mortgage Underwriters (S.A.) Pty. Limited

First Respondent

D.J. Evans (a male) and P.D. Murray (a male)

Second Respondents

Ronald Barnett Hyams

Bankrupt

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Application / Application for Declarations/orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sum of $16,699.12 is a divisible asset in the bankrupt's estate
  2. 2 Whether the bankrupt held the property on trust for the first respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The house (and therefore the proceeds) was held on trust by the bankrupt for the first respondent despite being registered in the bankrupt's name, as all mortgage repayments and the purchase were funded by the respondent (or associated company), and the circumstances demonstrated the intention that the property belongs to the first respondent both at law and equity. The competing claims of the bankrupt were not reliable or supported by evidence.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed in favour of first respondent. Declarations and orders made as consented.

Orders

  • It is declared that the sum of $16,699.12 (with accrued interest) held by the Hindmarsh Building Society in the joint names of the bankrupt and second respondents is not a divisible asset in the bankrupt estate of Ronald Barnett Hyams.
  • It is declared that the said sum with interest is held upon trust for the first respondent.