DOCSLIB.ORG

Windfall Equity and the Joint Endeavour Principle

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Windfall Equity and the Joint Endeavour Principle Author Weber, Dane B Published 2020-03-31 Thesis Type Thesis (PhD Doctorate) School Griffith Law School DOI https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/2554 Copyright Statement The author owns the copyright in this thesis, unless stated otherwise. Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/393194 Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au Windfall Equity and the Joint Endeavour Principle Mr Dane Bryce Weber LLM (Intellectual Property & Technology Law), GDLP, LLB (Hons) Griffith Law School Griffith University Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy JANUARY 2020 Dedicated to my golden retriever Holo who doesn’t care whatsoever and only hindered my progress, but I know she would love to rip this thesis to complete shreds and leave the chewed pieces for me to clean up. Index Page i Abstract In 1985 the High Court of Australia delivered its judgment in Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583 which awarded a constructive trust as a remedy. This case concerned a joint endeavour between two parties who were in a de facto relationship. The joint endeavour broke down without attributable blame in circumstances not contemplated by either party. A constructive trust was awarded to prevent one party from unconscionably asserting legal title to property obtained due to the joint endeavour without accounting to the other party for their equitable entitlements. The leading judgment by Deane J in this case was based on two principles. The first principle was that a constructive trust may be awarded as a remedy without a breach of fiduciary duty being necessary, but its use as a remedy must be principled, based on legitimate processes of legal reasoning. The second principle was in finding that principled basis by analogy to the general equitable principles that underpin partnership law which do not let property and rights simply lay where they fall if the parties’ arrangements end unexpectedly. Since 1985, courts across all levels and jurisdictions in Australia have applied the principles in Muschinski v Dodds. In that time, the case has found its principal use in de facto relationships. Some courts have sought to develop those principles in line with family law concepts, which has also drawn criticism from other courts. Eventually, the family law regime around 2009 finally included de facto relationships. However, the principles in Muschinski v Dodds still found use in other areas of law regarding families that family law does not address, such as the property rights of parents and children. Texts and commentators focus predominantly on these issues, claiming that the Muschinski v Dodds-style of constructive trust is purely remedial and applies to parties who cohabit. Further, in being treated as purely remedial, the principles in Muschinski v Dodds are often used to award any remedy in general for a failed joint endeavour, seemingly without a constructive trust being necessary, such as in Henderson v Miles (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 867 which coined the term ‘windfall equity’. However, that is only one aspect. During those thirty-plus years, the principles in Muschinski v Dodds have also applied to many cases that involve third parties, ranging from loose family arrangements to sophisticated contractual joint ventures. In these scenarios, whilst the Muschinski v Dodds-style of constructive trust is used as a remedy, it does so by taking advantage of its institutional characteristics: as a trust exists over property, the owner has no beneficial title to the property. This means that a claim by a third party against the property of a party to a joint endeavour may not succeed, as that property may in fact be beneficially owned by another. Dane Weber Page ii Windfall Equity and the Joint Endeavour Principle Texts and commentators overlook this prominent use of the constructive trust in favour of viewing it as purely remedial. In light of thirty-plus years of case law, this view cannot be sustained. The Muschinski v Dodds-style of constructive trust is not purely remedial: there is, in fact, no distinction between ‘remedial’ and ‘institutional’. A constructive trust arises by operation of law during a joint endeavour. The relevance of joint endeavours is also overlooked, despite joint endeavours being crucial to the Muschinski v Dodds-style of constructive trust. There has been no discussion on the mechanism for how this constructive trust operates beyond as a purely remedial device, nor has there been discussion on joint endeavours in general. From the case law, the constructive trust is inseparable from the joint endeavour in which it arises. Equity acts when it would be unconscionable for a party to assert their legal rights – this does not require wrongdoing. Further, as these trusts may afford higher priority to property than a third party, there must be some intrinsic character of a joint endeavour that gives rise to a constructive trust. This intrinsic character is of special relevance as, given that a joint endeavour can range from loose family arrangements to sophisticated contractual joint ventures, there is an underlying fabric connecting joint endeavours and joint ventures that has not yet been identified. These questions can be analysed and answered through the lens of corrective justice and unconscionability in Australia. In actuality, Muschinski v Dodds provides two crucial things. The first is that it provides the grounds for the cause of action of the ‘windfall equity’, which operates when a joint endeavour has broken down without attributable blame in circumstances not contemplated by the parties, and where one party has unconscionably retained property to the exclusion of the other. The second is that it provides a set of unifying principles called the ‘joint endeavour principle’ which governs how Equity assists joint endeavours, regardless of their formality, which includes the regulation of fiduciary duties and the construal of trusts. Statement of Originality This work has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the thesis itself. Dane Weber Index Page iii Table of Contents Chapter I: Windfall Equity and the Joint Endeavour Principle ......................................... 1 I Windfall Equity and the Joint Endeavour Principle ................................................... 1 A The Start .......................................................................................................... 3 B The Terms ‘Windfall Equity’ and ‘Joint Endeavour Principle’ .......................... 4 C The Purpose .................................................................................................... 5 II The Methodology ..................................................................................................... 5 A Selection of Cases ........................................................................................... 6 B Coding ............................................................................................................. 7 C Textbook Treatment ....................................................................................... 9 D Philosophical Context .................................................................................... 10 III Chapter 2: Foundation ............................................................................................ 11 IV Chapter 3: Development ........................................................................................ 11 V Chapters 4 and 5: Shear – Sword and Shield .......................................................... 12 VI Chapters 6 and 7: Theory and Application ............................................................. 14 VII Chapter 8: Conclusion and Restatement ................................................................ 14 Chapter II: Foundation................................................................................................. 16 I The Windfall Equity: Cause of Action, Principle, or Both? ...................................... 16 A The Windfall Equity and Joint Endeavour Principle ....................................... 17 B The Significance of the Windfall Equity and Joint Endeavour Principle ........ 20 C Why Constructive Trusts? ............................................................................. 21 II The Founding Principles ......................................................................................... 25 A Contribution .................................................................................................. 27 B Gifts with Conditions ..................................................................................... 31 C Partnerships and Joint Ventures ................................................................... 37 D Trusts and General Equity ............................................................................. 41 III Summary of Principles and Concerns ..................................................................... 45 A Principles ....................................................................................................... 45 B Concerns ....................................................................................................... 47 Dane Weber Page iv Windfall Equity and the Joint Endeavour Principle Chapter III: Development ...........................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Strengthening Statutory Unconscionable Conduct and the Franchising Code of Conduct

    Strengthening Statutory Unconscionable Conduct and the Franchising Code of Conduct

    Strengthening statutory unconscionable conduct and the Franchising Code of Conduct February 2010 Strengthening statutory unconscionable conduct and the Franchising Code of Conduct Report to the Hon Dr Craig Emerson MP Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs February 2010 © Commonwealth of Australia 2010 ISBN 978-0-642-74587-3 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the: Commonwealth Copyright Administration Attorney-General’s Department 3-5 National Circuit BARTON ACT 2600 Or posted at: http://www.ag.gov.au/cca LETTER TO THE MINISTER The Hon Dr Craig Emerson MP Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Minister In response to the terms of reference provided to us on 26 November 2009, we are pleased to enclose our final report, Strengthening statutory unconscionable conduct and the Franchising Code of Conduct. Yours sincerely Professor Bryan Horrigan Mr David Lieberman Mr Ray Steinwall February 2010 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER TO THE MINISTER ......................................................................................................... III GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................................
  • Private Law in Theory and Practice

    Private Law in Theory and Practice

    Private Law in Theory and Practice Private Law in Theory and Practice explores important theoretical issues in tort law, the law of contract and the law of unjust enrichment, and relates the theory to judicial decision making in these areas of private law. Topics covered include the politics and philosophy of tort law reform, the role of good faith in contract law, comparative perspectives on setting aside con- tracts for mistake, and the theory and practice of proprietary remedies in the law of unjust enrichment. Contributors to the book bring a variety of theoretical perspectives to bear on the analysis of private law. They include: economic analysis, corrective justice theory, comparative analysis of law, socio-legal inquiry, social history, political theory as well as doctrinal analysis of the law. In all cases the theor- etical approaches are applied to recent case law developments in England, Australia and Canada, and, in the case of tort law, proposals in all these jurisdictions to reform the law. The book aims to present the theory of private law, and the application of theory to practical legal problems in an accessible form to teachers and students of tort, contract and the law of unjust enrichment, legal researchers and law reformers. Michael Bryan is Professor of Law at the University of Melbourne. He has researched and published extensively in the areas of equity, trusts and restitu- tion, including The Law of Non-Disclosure (with A. Duggan and F. Hanks: Longman, 1995) and contributed a chapter to The Law of Obligations: Connections and Boundaries (UCL Press, 2003).
  • Yours, Mine, Or Ours? Charting a Course Through Equity's

    Yours, Mine, Or Ours? Charting a Course Through Equity's

    Yours, Mine, or Ours? Charting a Course Through Equity’s Determination of Domestic Proprietary Interests Kathrine Galloway ORCID: 0000-0002-8047-1210 Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements for an award of Doctor of Philosophy Submitted 24 March 2017 Melbourne Law School ABSTRACT Distributing proprietary interests between domestic heterosexual partners remains the purview of the courts of equity, using the trust. In answering the question: ‘Whose property is this?’ the courts are faced with the tension between a property law system designed for the market, and property claims arising from within a couple’s intimate lives. The law’s market orientation favours the party best able to explain their claim in market terms. Because of the gendered structures of society and the family, the process tends to favour the man. This prompts the question central to this thesis: Does equity have the capacity to determine domestic proprietary interests consistent with equality between men and women intimate partners in light of pervasive gender inequality? Existing analysis of intimate partner trusts predominantly suggests new redistributive mechanisms to resolve the problem of equality. Other work describes the law’s evolution towards more ‘familial’ approaches as ameliorating the unfairness of market norms applied to intimate relationships. This thesis adds to the literature by using relational theory to focus instead on equity’s existing property-based distributive framework, charting a course through the tensions inherent in the application of market principles to the intimate context. The tensions of individual and community, market and home, arise from the tenets of liberalism built into private law.
  • A Mirror to the Man Reflecting on Justice William Deane: a Private Man in Public Office

    A Mirror to the Man Reflecting on Justice William Deane: a Private Man in Public Office

    Heather Roberts* A MIRROR TO THE MAN REFLECTING ON JUSTICE WILLIAM DEANE: A PRIVATE MAN IN PUBLIC OFFICE AbstrAct Sir William Deane was a member of the High Court of Australia during one of its most creative periods, from 1982 to 1995. His decisions displayed a notable commitment to social justice and a willingness to extend the constitutional protection of human rights. These tendencies were particularly prominent during the Mason Court years (1987–1995), manifesting in decisions including Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1; Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292; Leeth v Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 455; and the political communication cases of 1992 and 1994. Although his judgments displayed a clear vision of his judicial responsibilities, Deane adopted a strict extra-judicial silence regarding the principles that informed his judicial philosophy. However, as Australia’s 22nd Governor-General Deane was more open regarding his personal beliefs and their influence on his performance of those duties. This article utilises Deane’s public statements as Governor-General to shed light on the foundations of his judicial philosophy. In particular, as Governor-General Deane drew on his Christian faith to support his commitment to highlight the cause of indigenous reconciliation and the plight of the disadvantaged in Australia. This article argues that Deane’s spiritual convictions, as articulated in his vice-regal statements, can also be regarded as underpinning his understanding of his role as High Court Justice. I IntroductIon When Sir William Deane retired as Governor-General in 2001 he was regarded by many as one of Australia’s most prominent public figures, an ‘Australian living treasure’.1 Deane’s popularity, and critics, stemmed from his commitment to social * LLB (Hons), PhD (ANU), Lecturer, ANU College of Law.
  • The Development of a Commercial Fiduciary Jurisprudence in the High Court of Australia: 1903 to 2009

    The Development of a Commercial Fiduciary Jurisprudence in the High Court of Australia: 1903 to 2009

    University of Technology, Sydney Thesis Title: The Development of a Commercial Fiduciary Jurisprudence in the High Court of Australia: 1903 to 2009 Student Name: William Hugh McManus Degree Name: Master of Laws (Research) Course Number: C03024v4 Supervisor: Dr John Felemegas, Faculty of Law Year of Submission: 2009 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORSHIP/ORIGINALITY I certify that the work in this thesis has not previously been submitted for a degree nor has it been submitted as part of requirements for a degree except as fully acknowledged within the text. I also certify that the thesis has been written by me. Any help that I have received in my research work and the preparation of the thesis itself has been acknowledged. In addition, I certify that all information sources and literature used are indicated in the thesis. Name of Student: William Hugh McManus Signature of Student 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT I thank my supervisor, Dr John Felemegas of the Faculty of Law, University of Technology, Sydney for his continued guidance, support and inspiration throughout the research. In addition, I extend my appreciation to the staff of the Research Office, Faculty of Law, University of Technology, Sydney for their invaluable assistance in the days leading up to the finalisation of the thesis. 3 CONTENTS Introduction 7 Title 7 Thesis 7 Objective 7 Methodology 8 Structure 11 Definitions and Terminology 12 Abstract 14 Chapter 1 16 ■ 1903 to 1919-Griffith CJ 16 1903 to 1919 - High Court of Australia Cases Decided 19 ■ New Lambton Land and Coal Co Ltd v London Bank of
  • Statute and Common Law: Interaction and Influence in Light of the Principle of Coherence

    Statute and Common Law: Interaction and Influence in Light of the Principle of Coherence

    2015 Statute and Common Law 367 STATUTE AND COMMON LAW: INTERACTION AND INFLUENCE IN LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF COHERENCE ELISE BANT * I INTRODUCTION Following the recent High Court decision in Miller v Miller ,1 there has been renewed emphasis on the principle of coherence as an overarching requirement of Australian private law. 2 Although the concept of coherence in this context is yet to be fully articulated, 3 it clearly embraces the requirement that specific private law rules and doctrines should not be applied in such a way as to undermine or stultify an overriding legal prohibition or principle of liability. 4 Rather, rules and doctrines must be applied in such a way that supports or * Professor of Law, Melbourne Law School. This paper arises out of an Australian Research Council project jointly led with Associate Professor Jeannie Paterson titled ‘Remedies under the Australian Consumer Law : Evolution and Revolution’. The author would like to thank Associate Professor Jeannie Paterson, Emeritus Professor Michael Bryan, Holly Fairhurst, the anonymous referees and the participants at the Obligations VII Conference held in Hong Kong in July 2014 for their very helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this article. All remaining errors and infelicities remain the author’s. 1 (2011) 242 CLR 446. 2 See also Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton (2012) 246 CLR 498, 518 [34], 520 [38], 523 [45] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ) (‘ Equuscorp ’). 3 It seems likely that analogical reasoning, pivotal to maintaining a system of legal rules based (in part) on the doctrine of precedent, is a necessary subset of the concept of coherence.
  • Equity's Australian Isolationism, W a Lee Equity Lecture, Queensland

    Equity's Australian Isolationism, W a Lee Equity Lecture, Queensland

    QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY BRISBANE, 19 NOVEMBER 2008 W A LEE EQUITY LECTURE EQUITY’S AUSTRALIAN ISOLATIONISM* The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG** A VITAL SOURCE OF PRINCIPLE It is a privilege to deliver this lecture to honour Tony Lee whom I have known for 30 years. I pay tribute to his scholarship and his teaching of the law to generations of Australian lawyers. Like Caesar’s Gaul, this lecture is divided into three parts. First, I will speak against the opinion that equity’s doctrines in Australia are exclusive, isolated, closed and incapable of growth and adaptation. Secondly, I will reflect on an application of that opinion as it affects particular developments in the law of unjust enrichment. And thirdly, I * The WA Lee Equity Lecture delivered at the Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 19 November 2008. The author acknowledges the assistance in the preparation of this lecture of Ms Anna Gordon, then legal research officer in the High Court library. ** Justice of the High Court of Australia 2. will conclude with some observations on the role of the High Court of Australia and intermediate courts in deciding cases on equitable doctrine and remedies and upon the need to observe civility between courts within Australia’s integrated judicature. Strange as it may seem, there are few areas of Australian law that 1 generate so many passions as equity. Sir Frank Kitto, Justice of the High Court of Australia from 1950 to 1970, described equity as:2 “the saving supplement and complement of the Common Law … prevailing over the Common Law in cases of conflict but ensuring, by its persistence and by the very fact of its prevailing, the survival of the Common Law”.