Calverley v Green

Facts

Green and Calverley, who were in a de facto relationship, purchased a property in their joint names. The purchase price was funded partly by a loan taken out solely in Calverley's name and partly by a cash contribution from Green. When the relationship ended, a dispute arose as to the beneficial ownership of the property.

Issues

1. Whether a resulting trust arises where parties take title to property as joint tenants but contribute unequally to the purchase price. 2. Whether mortgage borrowings taken out solely by one co-purchaser count as that party's contribution to the purchase price for the purposes of the resulting trust.

Holding

The High Court held that a resulting trust arose in proportion to the parties' respective contributions to the purchase price, with Calverley's mortgage borrowings counting as his contribution alone, so that the beneficial interests were held in shares corresponding to the actual financial contributions of each party.

Ratio decidendi

Where property is purchased in the names of two or more persons but they contribute unequally to the purchase price, a resulting trust arises in favour of each contributor in proportion to their contribution; mortgage moneys borrowed solely by one party are treated as that party's contribution to the purchase price and not a joint contribution, unless there is a common intention to the contrary.

Obiter dicta

Mason and Brennan JJ noted that the presumption of resulting trust and the presumption of advancement are rebuttable by evidence of a contrary common intention, and that the nature of a de facto relationship does not, of itself, give rise to a presumption of advancement.

Significance

Calverley v Green is the leading High Court authority establishing that resulting trusts over co-owned property are calculated by reference to actual financial contributions to the purchase price, including the allocation of sole mortgage liability, and it remains the foundational case governing equitable property disputes between unmarried co-purchasers in Australia.

Key authorities

• Dyer v Dyer Dyer v Dyer (1788) 2 Cox Eq Cas 92applied
• Pettitt v Pettitt Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777considered
• Gissing v Gissing Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886considered
• Allen v Snyder Allen v Snyder [1977] 2 NSWLR 685considered
• Muschinski v Dodds Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583cited