|
Muschinski V Dodds
''Muschinski v Dodds'',. was a significant Australian court case, decided by the High Court of Australia on 6 December 1985. The case was part of a trend of High Court decisions to impose a constructive trust where it would be unconscionable for a legal owner of property to deny the beneficial interests of another. In this case the Court held it would be unconscionable for Mr Dodds to retain a half share of the property without first accounting for the purchase price paid by Ms Muschinski. Background Facts Ms Muschinski and Mr Dodds were in a ''de facto relationship''. In 1976 they purchased a property in Picton as tenants in common, intending to develop and use the property. Ms Muschinski paid the purchase price while Mr Dodds was going to renovate the cottage and to pay for a kit house. The development did not go ahead and the couple separated. Prior actions Ms Muschinski commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW seeking a de ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
High Court Of Australia
The High Court of Australia is Australia's apex court. It exercises Original jurisdiction, original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified within Constitution of Australia, Australia's Constitution. The High Court was established following passage of the ''Judiciary Act 1903''. It derives its authority from Chapter III of the Australian Constitution, which vests it responsibility for the judiciary, judicial power of the Commonwealth. Important legal instruments pertaining to the High Court include the ''Judiciary Act 1903'' and the ''High Court of Australia Act 1979''.. Its bench is composed of seven justices, including a Chief Justice of Australia, Chief Justice, currently Susan Kiefel. Justices of the High Court are appointed by the Governor-General of Australia, Governor-General on the Advice (constitutional law), advice of the Prime Minister of Australia, Prime Minister and are appointed permanently until their mandatory retirement at age 70, unless they retire ea ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Picton, New South Wales
Picton is a small town in the Macarthur Region of New South Wales, Australia, in the Wollondilly Shire, in south-western Sydney. The town is located approximately 90 kilometres south-west of Sydney, close to Camden and Campbelltown. It is also the administrative centre of Wollondilly Shire. History Picton was first explored by Europeans in 1798 and remained beyond the limits of legal settlement until 1821. Following the discovery of good land in the interior and the settlement of Bong Bong and the Goulburn areas, Governor Macquarie authorised the building of the new Great South Road between Sydney and the Southern Highlands in 1819. This opened up the Picton area to settlers, including Henry Colden Antill, who established a property in 1822. Picton developed when a new line of the Great South Road was cut over the Razorback Range from Camden, and especially after the railway arrived in 1863. Picton is the only town in the Southern Hemisphere that one can pass through t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Property Case Law
Property is a system of rights that gives people legal control of valuable things, and also refers to the valuable things themselves. Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property may have the right to consume, alter, share, redefine, rent, mortgage, pawn, sell, exchange, transfer, give away or destroy it, or to exclude others from doing these things, as well as to perhaps abandon it; whereas regardless of the nature of the property, the owner thereof has the right to properly use it under the granted property rights. In economics and political economy, there are three broad forms of property: private property, public property, and collective property (also called cooperative property). Property that jointly belongs to more than one party may be possessed or controlled thereby in very similar or very distinct ways, whether simply or complexly, whether equally or unequally. However, there is an expectation that each party's will (rather discretion) with regar ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Commercial Bank Of Australia Ltd V Amadio
''Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio'',. is a seminal case in Australian contract law and equity, in which the High Court held that unconscionable dealing due to a lack of knowledge or education and the consequent imbalance in bargaining power could lead to a transaction being set aside. The case is a formative case for the defence of unconscionability, a precursor to statutory unconscionability. Background Facts Giovani and Cesira Amadio, whose son, Vincenzo, carried on business as a builder, guaranteed their son's indebtedness to the Commercial Bank of Australia. To this end, they executed certain documents the effect of which was to provide the bank with a mortgage over a building which they owned. When the son's business failed, the bank sought to enforce the guarantee. In their defence, the Amadios asserted that the guarantee was unenforceable because it was unconscionable. They were held to be at a "special disadvantage" as an equitable doctrine in Equity (law) ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd V Say-Dee Pty Ltd
''Farah Constructions v Say-Dee Pty Ltd'', also known as ''Farah'', is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The case was influential in developing Australian legal doctrines relating to Equity (law), equity, Property law, property, unjust enrichment, and Constructive trusts in English law, constructive trusts, as well as the doctrine of precedent as it applies in Australia. In relation to the doctrine of precedent, the High Court held that Australian intermediate appellate courts and trial judges are bound by earlier decisions of intermediate appellate courts when construing federal and uniform national legislation, as well as Common law, non-statutory law, unless convinced that the earlier decision was 'plainly wrong'. It further held that lower courts in Australia must obey the 'seriously considered Obiter dictum, dicta' of a High Court majority., para 158 The decision also resolved in part the relationship between ''Barnes v Addy'' liability and the Torrens system; th ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.jpg "Click for more on -> Property Case Law")
