Muschinski v Dodds and the Joint Endeavour Principle: the ephemeral distinction between institutional and remedial

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
File version

Accepted Manuscript (AM)

Author(s)
Weber, Dane
Griffith University Author(s)
Primary Supervisor
Other Supervisors
Editor(s)
Date
2019
Size
File type(s)
Location
License
Abstract

The 1985 High Court case of Muschinski v Dodds provided relief by way of a constructive trust when a joint endeavour broke down without attributable blame in circumstances not contemplated by the parties. This has spurred extensive literature on remedial constructive trusts. Unfortunately, there has been a dearth of literature on the relevance of institutional constructive trusts in joint endeavours. In the 2005 Supreme Court of New South Wales case of Henderson v Miles [No 2], these same principles provided relief for a failed joint endeavour, but constructive trusts were not mentioned — yet the case is cited as an example of constructive trusts arising from windfalls. This article discusses the relevance of constructive trusts in joint endeavours and, through a case analysis, shows that the distinction between remedial and institutional constructive trusts is ephemeral: constructive trusts arise by operation of law in joint endeavours. They are no mere ‘remedial’ response.

Journal Title

Australian Property Law Journal

Conference Title
Book Title
Edition
Volume

27

Issue
Thesis Type
Degree Program
School
DOI
Patent number
Funder(s)
Grant identifier(s)
Rights Statement
Rights Statement

© 2019 Lexis Nexis Australia. This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher.Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version.

Item Access Status
Note
Access the data
Related item(s)
Subject

Private law and civil obligations

Persistent link to this record
Citation

Weber, D, Muschinski v Dodds and the Joint Endeavour Principle: the ephemeral distinction between institutional and remedial, Australian Property Law Journal, 2019, 27, pp. 227-249

Collections