''Muschinski v Dodds'',. was a significant Australian

court A court is any person or institution, often as a government institution, with the authority to adjudicate legal disputes between parties and carry out the administration of justice in civil, criminal, and administrative matters in acco ...

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 Unconscionability (sometimes known as unconscionable dealing/conduct in Australia) is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining ...

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 ''De facto'' ( ; , "in fact") describes practices that exist in reality, whether or not they are officially recognized by laws or other formal norms. It is commonly used to refer to what happens in practice, in contrast with ''de jure'' ("by la ...

''. In 1976 they purchased a property in Picton as

tenants in common In property law, a concurrent estate or co-tenancy is any of various ways in which property is owned by more than one person at a time. If more than one person owns the same property, they are commonly referred to as co-owners. Legal terminolo ...

, 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 The Supreme Court of New South Wales is the highest state court of the Australian State of New South Wales. It has unlimited jurisdiction within the state in civil matters, and hears the most serious criminal matters. Whilst the Supreme Court ...

seeking a declaration that she was the sole owner. Mr Dodds made a cross claim for the property to be sold and the proceeds to be divided equally. Waddell J dismissed Ms Muschinski's claim and stood the matter over to determine Mr Dodds' cross claim. Ms Muschinski appealed to the

NSW Court of Appeal The New South Wales Court of Appeal, part of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, is the highest court for civil matters and has appellate jurisdiction in the Australian state of New South Wales. Jurisdiction The Court of Appeal operates pursu ...

who dismissed the appeal. Hope JA, with whom Samuels and Mahoney agreed, said:

I agree with his Honour's conclusion that (Ms Muschinski) intended to give (Mr Dodds) a one-half beneficial interest in the land, and that this intention was based on the assurances which (Mr Dodds) gave to her and not upon the fulfilment of those assurances.

Judgment

The High Court of Australia found in favour of Ms Muschinski. The majority, Gibbs CJ, Mason & Deane JJ, held that the legal interests of the parties were subject to a constructive trust to (1) repayment any joint debts (2) repay each of their contributions and (3) any residue was to be distributed in equal shares. Brennan & Dawson JJ dissented.

References

External links

*{{cite web, url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=1985+HCA+78 , title=Cases and articles referring to ''Muschinski v Dodds'' , website=LawCite Property case law Equity (law) High Court of Australia cases

Background

Facts

Prior actions

Judgment

See also

Cases Referring to this Case

Cases Considered by this Case

References

External links