Of course it's just a tree.  What does it look like ?
RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives
  
 
 

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

 
<== Previous message       Back to index        Next message ==>
Sender:
Simon Evans
Date:
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:00:35 +1000
Re:
Discretionary Remedialism Debunked

 

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Black CJ, Kiefel and Finkelstein JJ) has just roundly rejected the proposition that a common intention constructive trust does not come into existence until declared to do so by the court: Parsons and Parsons v McBain [2001] FCA 376 (5 April 2001) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2001/376.html. (To my mind, this part of the judgment relies on a rather strong reading of Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101.)

In doing so, it overruled Re Osborn; Ex parte Trustee of the Property of Osborn (A bankrupt) v Osborn (1989) 25 FCR 547. It also rejected Secretary, Department of Social Security v Agnew (2000) 96 FCR 357 which appears to have held that there is a discretion as to the date on which such a trust comes into existence.

Naturally, both holdings are to be regretted!!

 

Simon Evans

--
Dr Simon Evans
Faculty of Law
University of Melbourne
VIC 3010
Phone: +61 3 8344 4751
Fax: +61 3 9347 2392
WWW: http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au


<== Previous message       Back to index        Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "


     
Webspace provided by UCC   »
»
»
»
»
For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.
only search restitution site

 
 Contact the webmaster !