Muschinski v Dodds and the Joint Endeavour Principle: The Ephemeral Distinction Between Institutional and Remedial

Australian Property Law Journal, Forthcoming

Griffith University Law School Research Paper No. 19-10

24 Pages Posted: 9 Jun 2019 Last revised: 17 Sep 2019

See all articles by Dane Weber

Dane Weber

Griffith University, Griffith Law School

Date Written: 2019

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.

Keywords: [comma separated]javascript:void(0);

Suggested Citation

Weber, Dane, Muschinski v Dodds and the Joint Endeavour Principle: The Ephemeral Distinction Between Institutional and Remedial (2019). Australian Property Law Journal, Forthcoming, Griffith University Law School Research Paper No. 19-10, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3399290

Dane Weber (Contact Author)

Griffith University, Griffith Law School ( email )

Nathan Campus, GU
Nathan
Australia

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
97
Abstract Views
505
rank
294,623
PlumX Metrics