The Property Rights of Home-Makers under General Law:

Byson v B yant

1. The Property Rights of Women

What rights does a woman really have in her family home, when her male
partner is the sole registered owner? After nearly 20 years in force, the Family
Law Act Act 1975 (Cth) has encouraged a community expectation that women
are entitled to a share of family property, even if their contribution is largely
domestic labour not easily translated into dollars. The De Facto Relationships
Act 1984 (NSW) produced similar expectations for women in long term de
facto relationships. But are these expectations supported by the general law?
Does a woman need to go through divorce (or de facto equivalent) before she
has any meaningful property rights in the family home?
The peculiar circumstances of Bryson v Bryant1 provided an opportunity
for the New South Wales Court of Appeal to examine whether the general law
does concede an equitable interest in the family home to "home-makers", and
precisely what the nature of that interest is. Unfortunately, the bench produced
three separate and significantly different opinions.
Common to all three, however, was the firm reminder that there is no legal
regime of community property in New South Wales (nor in Australia gener-
ally).2 A decade ago the Australian Law Reform Commission considered the
pros and cons of the concept of community property for spouses in an exten-
sive enquiry into the economic consequences of divorce.3
Strong representations from sections of the women's movement (notably
Eva Cox)4 claimed a community property regime would disadvantage women
after divorce because women from asset-poor marriages would be lumbered
with a share of debts, and in any case, a 5050 split of property on divorce
would disadvantage whichever party had the least opportunity to earn income
post-divorce. As the empirical studies showed, that party was usually the woman.
Whichever system produces the "best" results for divorcees, Bryson v Bry-
ant shows that the absence of a community property regime can disadvantage
women who wish to assert an interest in family property without going
through divorce. This case concerned a woman's wish to bequeath a benefi-
cial interest in her family home to a relative. A more critical situation might
be the right of woman to retain a beneficial interest in her home when her hus-
band, the registered proprietor, is declared bankrupt.
Under general law women in such circumstances face considerable obsta-
cles. The orthodox doctrine of resulting trusts is entirely inadequate to find re-
alistic solutions to such problems (as the following argument attempts to

1 (1992) 16FamLR 112.

2 Id, per Kirby P at 117, 121; per Sheller JA at 137, 143; per Samuels AJA at 150.
3 See Graycar, R and Morgan, J, The Hidden Gender of Law (1990)at 129-139.
4 See Cox, E, "Matrimonial Property Scuttled" (1985) 10 Leg Sen, Bull 192, quoted in
Graycar and Morgan, id at 135.
19941 NOTES 413
prove). Constructive trust reasoning offers a more flexible approach, but at its
present stage of evolution in Australia, the constructive trust remedy is better
fitted to relationships analogous with commercial relationships.5
Kirby P6 cited Patrick Parkinson's conclusion in "Intention, Contribution
and Reliance in the De Facto Cases": "The law, then, has come a long way,
but there is still further to go. It remains open to the criticism of gender bias to
the extent that home-makers are not treated as well as those making financial
contributions".7 Those criticisms remain following the majority decision in
Bryson v Bryant.

2. The Facts
After a marriage spanning 60 years, George and Margaret Moate of Sans
Souci died within a few months of each other, each leaving a will. There be-
ing no children to the marriage, Margaret left her "real and personal estate
whatsoever and wherever" to her brother, John Bryson (the appellant). Shortly
after making this will a caveat was lodged in her name asserting an equitable
interest against the title of the couple's home of which George was the sole
registered proprietor. George's will left a life estate to Margaret and the re-
mainder to the Red Cross Society. Margaret died shortly before George, who
was suffering severe dementia in a nursing home. The executors of both wills
agreed to remove the caveat so that the property could be sold and the pro-
ceeds distributed according to the Court's determination.
One of the difficulties of this case was that many of the assertions of the
plaintiff about the extent of Margaret's participation in the purchase and im-
provement of the family home were not supported by any documentary evi-
dence, nor by any witness other than John Bryson himself. Consequently, not
all of these assertions were accepted as fact by the whole bench.
The property in dispute was bought in 1935 for 70 pounds. George had an
electrical business which, due to prevailing economic conditions, failed in
1930 and he secured no more work until 1935. During those five years, John
Bryson claimed that the couple lived off his sister's income as a shoe shop as-
sistant. John also claimed that his sister had received a share of about 75
pounds in his mother's estate in 1941 or 1942, and that this had been spent on
improvements and furnishings in the house. Margaret had been a helper about
the site while George, John and other friends and relatives had built the house.
From the time George secured employment in 1935 until their mutual hospi-
talisation in 1987, she had been a "dutiful"8 wife and housekeeper.

5 The analogy with a joint endeavour, the basis of which had failed, was crucial to the find-
ings of the High Court in Muschimki v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583 and Baumgamer v
Baumgariner (1987) 164 CLR 137.
6 Above n l at 122.
7 (1991) 5 A J Fam L 268 at 276.
8 Above nl, per Samuels AJA at 152.
414 SYDNEY LAW REVIEW [VOL 16: 412

Kirby P alone accepted the inference that Margaret had contributed the
money from an inheritance to the family home. He was also the only judge to
infer that her period as the sole breadwinner meant she had contributed finan-
cially, albeit indirectly to the purchase price.9
While Kirby P gave some weight to the fact that Margaret had placed a ca-
veat on the title and made a wil1,lo Sheller JA described this evidence as "non
probative". 11

3. The Decision at First Instance

Young J held that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Margaret had
contributed to the property with the intention of gaining an interest in it which
would survive her death. He found there was no constructive trust in favour of
her estate, since on the principles espoused by the High Court in Muschinski v
Dodds,l2 George's executors were not acting unconscionably in retaining the
whole property after her death.
He said:
... when parties are clubbing together to provide a matrimonial home, it is
not unconscionable if one party should die, for the other party to take the
whole of the interest himself because, after all, one might very well say that
each party contemplated that should one die prematurely then the other
would have a roof over his or [sic] head for life.13
As it turned out, this observation effectively decided the appeal, since it was
the chief reason given by Sheller JA for not finding a constructive trust in
Margaret's favour after her death.14

4. The Appeal
John appealed on three different but related grounds, set out in the judgment
of Kirby P:15
On the basis of the doctrine of resulting trusts, the court should infer a
common intention on the part of George and Margaret to create an
equitable interest for Margaret which was devisable on her death and
which would be upheld against the consciences of both Mr Moate during
his life and later his executors.
In the absence of sufficient evidence of intention to establish a resulting
trust, the court should nevertheless declare a constructive trust as a
remedy for the unconscionable denial by George's executors of
Margaret's equitable interest.

9 Idat 121.
10 Id at 131.
11 Id at 142.
12 (1985) 160CLR 583.
13 Cited by Kirby P above n l at 115.
14 Id at 144.
15 Idat 116.
19941 NOTES 415
George's executors should be compelled to make restitution to
Margaret's estate to prevent the unjust enrichment that would ensue if
they were allowed to retain the benefit of her contributions and labours.

5. The Resulting Trust, and the "Common Intention"

Constructive Trust
All three judges rejected the first ground, on the basis that there was insuffi-
cient evidence of any common intention of the parties that Margaret should
have an interest in the matrimonial home.16
Strictly speaking, the "intention" required for a finding of a resulting trust
is one presumed by the court in the absence of proof of any contrary actual in-
tention of the parties. A resulting trust arises when a party provides funds for
the acquisition of property but does not obtain any legal interest in the prop-
erty. The fact of the contribution gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that
the contributor intended to obtain a beneficial interest in the property pur-
chased. The presumption can be rebutted by evidence or inference that the
contribution was intended as a gift.
The judgments of both Kirby P and Samuels AJA do not make the distinc-
tion between resulting and constructive trusts precisely clear (as Sheller JA
does).l7 Kirby P speaks of the requirement of a "common intention" to estab-
lish a resulting trust18 and goes on to consider whether Margaret's conduct
throughout the marriage was referable to that common intention.19 This type
of analysis is generally applied to a type of constructive trust, imposed where
one party declared an unwritten but nevertheless express intention to give a
beneficial interest to the other party, and that other party relied to his or her
detriment on that intention. This type of trust is a constructive trust imposed
to ensure that there is no unconscionable reliance on the Statute of Frauds re-
quirement for writing. In Australia, this type of constructive trust has been ap-
plied in the case of Green v Green.20
Samuels AJA21 also discusses this type of trust in the context of an "ex-
tended" doctrine of resulting trust. Since two of the judges deal with this type
of trust in the context of resulting trusts, I shall deal with it first.
In establishing this type of trust, women are disadvantaged by a need to re-
but a presumption that their contributions of money and domestic services
were given purely out of "natural love and affectionW.22Unless there is proof
that contributions were made either in exchange for a promise of a proprietary
interest (in which case even domestic services may constitute a contribution:

16 Id, per Kirby Pat 122;per Sheller JA at 143; per Samuels AJA at 150.
17 Id at 141-2.
18 Id at 120.
19 Idat 122.
20 (1989) 13 Fam LR 336; (1989) 17 NSWLR 343.
21 Above nl at 149.
22 Id, per Kirby P at 122; per Sheller JA at 142; per Samuels AJA at 151.
416 SYDNEY LAW REVIEW [VOL 16: 412

see Green v Green)23 or as part of a partnership or joint venture involving the

acquisition of property (as in Baumgartner v Baumgartner)24 a woman's con-
tributions are frequently inferred to be given freely out of love and devotion.
Young J at first instance held that there was "just not enough evidence in
this case for the plaintiff to prove that the reasons why [Mrs Moate] put in her
contributions was [sic] other than for love and affection that she held for [Mr
MoateIm.25Sheller JA26 and Samuels MA27 both said that Margaret's con-
duct was as likely to be explained by "natural love" as by any desire to ac-
quire an interest in property. Sheller JA cited Nourse LJ in Grant v Edwards28
for the proposition that to find a resulting trust (or as it should more properly
be described, a constructive trust) the woman's conduct must be such as she
"could not reasonably have been expected to embark [upon] unless she was to
have an interest in the house".
Under this formulation, women in domestic relationships bear a near im-
possible burden of proving that they had an overriding mercenary motive for
joining the relationship. Apparently, the purely commercial transaction of a
prostitute who unashamedly demands property in exchange for "love and af-
fection", could come within this formulation. This illustrates a bias in favour
of relationships that can be described in commercial terms, and against the
purely private, personal relationship.29
Surely after nearly 20 years of the operation of the Family Law Act 1975, it
is reasonable to infer that married women do expect that in addition to sharing
"natural love" they are entitled to a share of the tangible assets acquired dur-
ing the marriage. This doctrine asks the question: 'Would she have married
him if there was to be no home ownership?'Surely the more realistic question
should be: "Did they expect that she would share fully in any property that did
happen to be acquired throughout the course of the relationship?'. The answer
in Margaret Moate's case was clearly "yes". By the time Margaret had made
her will she clearly believed that her contributions to the marriage over 60
years gave her an entitlement to an interest in the family home - not only a
personal right to live there herself, but a full proprietary right, able to be de-
vised on her death.
Unfortunately for Margaret's intended beneficiary, the fact of her will and
the subsequent caveat were discounted as completely irrelevant by Sheller JA
and Samuels AJA. Samuels AJA30 took an historical excursion back to the atti-
tudes of men and women in the 1920s when Margaret and George first eloped.
Margaret was fixed with the intention she was assumed to have had in 1927, re-
gardless of the revolution in attitudes over the subsequent 60 years of her life.
This highlights a serious weakness in the resulting trust doctrine as far as
application to family property is concerned. According to the orthodox view,

23 Above n20.
24 Above n5.
25 Above n13.
26 Id at 142.
27 Id at 149.
28 [I9861 Ch 638 at 648.
29 See Graycar and Morgan, above n3 at 30-39.
30 Above n l at 147.
 NOTES

the relevant time for examining both the quantum of the contribution and the
intention of the contributor (for the purpose of supporting or rebutting a pre-
sumption of trust) is the time of initial acquisition of the property. In the case
of family homes, it is unrealistic to assume that only contributions made at the
time of purchase reflect the intentions of the parties as far as long term shares
in ownership are concerned. The constructive trust, which takes into account
later contributions, is clearly more appropriate to determining interests in fam-
ily property. Nevertheless, counsel for the plaintiff argued for a resulting trust,
so all three judges examined the doctrine and dismissed it before considering
the constructive trust.
Kirby P31 appears to have merged resulting and constructive trust doctrine,
by citing Lord Bridge in Lloyds Bank PLC v Rosset,32 as authority for the
proposition that there may be exceptional cases where a common intention
formed after acquisition may be relevant to a finding of a resulting trust. Shel-
ler JA cited the same passage33 in respect of the "common intention" con-
structive trust discussed above. Generally, subsequent declarations of
intention are only admissible in any finding of a resulting trust "as admissions
against interest9'.34
Samuels AJA cited Gibbs CJ in Calverley v Green35 to justify a strict view
that "[tlhe relevant time at which the situation of the parties must be examined
is the date of purchase of the property".36
This orthodox requirement may have been appropriate to property transac-
tions of wealthy gentry in the 18th and 19th centuries in England, but it has lit-
tle bearing on the acquisition of the peculiar asset that is the working
Australian family's home. Commonly, family homes are initially acquired
with a very modest deposit and a 30 year mortgage. Over the course of a mar-
riage, the asset is often improved and extended dramatically. The value repre-
sented by the asset at the end of a long marriage is substantially greater than
the initial contribution on acquisition. Indeed, it is hardly realistic to describe
the initial 10 per cent deposit on a block of land as the "acquisition" of a home
when it will take 30 or 40 years to acquire an unencumbered interest. It is
hardly fair to attribute the whole of the funds borrowed on a mortgage to the
person whose name happens to be on the bank's documents, when in reality,
families pool resources to enable the official mortgagor to meet mortgage re-
payments. It makes no common or legal sense to ignore the additions of value
over the course of acquiring that unencumbered interest. This seems particu-
larly unfair given that the Australian family home, being one of the few assets
exempt from capital gains tax, is often the family's principal vehicle for saving.
Time is not the only weakness in the orthodox doctrine. Applying the doc-
trine strictly, Samuels AJA37 and Sheller JA38 held that contributions must be

31 Idatl20.
32 [I9911 1 AC 107 at 132ff.
33 Above nl at 136.
34 Id, per Sheller JA at 137.
35 (1984) 155 CLR 243.
36 Above nl at 149.
37 Id at 149.
38 Id at 142.
418 SYDNEY LAW REVIEW [VOL 16: 412

financial to find a resulting trust. Kirby P was more willing to ascribe an eco-
nomic value to Margaret's domestic services39 but since he was the only one
of the three to accept any of the inferences that Margaret had contributed fi-
nancially, his comments on her non-financial contributions were not essential
to his decision. Kirby P alone inferred that since Margaret was the sole bread-
winner for the five years immediately before the house building began her
earnings were likely to have contributed, albeit indirectly, to the purchase
price.40 The fact that only George's name was on the title reflected no more
than the customs of 1932. "[Ilf the mercantile obsessions of our law require us
to focus exclusively on financial contributions, they are readily to be found in
this case," Kirby P said.41
Sheller JA rejected this inference. He said the property "was registered in
the name of Mr Moate because he paid for it9'.42In the course of argument, no
evidence was led as to where George got the 70 pounds. Samuels AJA also
held that Margaret had made no proven financial contribution to the purchase
price of the property, so no resulting trust could be found in her favour.
Women's non-financial contributions which effectively free up their part-
ners to earn outside income and thereby acquire property, will not warrant any
grant of an equitable interest in that property under the resulting trust doctrine.
This too ignores the way in which a great many Australian families acquire
family assets. In many traditional relationships the partners set out to maxi-
mise family income by dividing up responsibilities. He works outside the
home for money. She keeps house and cares for children (and perhaps takes
on part-time or casual work) and exercises all the economies necessary to en-
able mortgage payments to be met and home improvements to be made. Her
labour is often vital to the acquisition and improvement of the home, yet the
resulting trust doctrine is not equipped to recognise it.
In his concluding remarks on resulting trusts Kirby P cited Parkinson for
the proposition that this doctrine ought nevertheless not lightly be abandoned
"in the rush to confer broad discretions on judgesW.43In my view, the doctrine
of the resulting trust has no useful role to play in Australian family property
law. Its anachronistic requirements render it an entirely inappropriate tool for
finding just and equitable solutions to family property disputes. The more
flexible remedy of the constructive trust is clearly a more appropriate avenue
for examining and resolving family property disputes. Nevertheless, as the
judgments in Bryson v Bryant reveal, and as it will be argued here, the con-
structive trust in its present state of evolution still exposes the homemaking
partner of a relationship to significant disabilities in establishing full proprie-
tary rights in the family home.

39 Id at 122.
40 Idat 121.
41 Id at 126.
42 Id at 142.
43 Id at 122,citing Parkinson, above n6.
 NOTES

6. The "New" Constructive Trust Based on

Unconscionability
Each member of the Court moved on to examine the "new" constructive
trust44 which, according to Deane J in Muschinski v Dodds45 is:
... a remedial institution which equity imposes regardless of actual or pre-
sumed agreement or intention (and subsequently protects) to preclude the re-
tention or assertion of beneficial ownership of property to the extent that
such retention or assertion would be contrary to equitable principle.
The retention or assertion of legal title must be "unconscionable" before a
constructive trust will be found. The notion of "unconscionability" in this
context is not precisely defined. Deane J emphasised that it must not be made
an excuse for "the indulgence of idiosyncratic notions of fairness and jus-
ticeW.46This warning was picked up by Kirby P where he said that Australian
courts would not engage in "palm tree justice9'.47 Sheller JA48 and Samuels
AJA49 also referred to this warning. They cited the statement of Windeyer J in
Hepworth v Hepworthso that the court "has no discretion to disregard existing
legal and equitable rights and to make such order as may seem to it fair in the
circumstances existing when it is considering the case".sl With that warning a
unanimous voice from the Australian courts joins the authors of Jacobs' Law
of Trusts in Australia,52 in firmly denouncing the "heresy" of Lord Denning's
new model of constructive trust expounded in Heseltine v Heseltiness and
Cooke v Head.54
But what is "unconscionability" in this context? Detriment or loss to the
claimant is an essential element,sS and there must be some conduct of the per-
son denying the claim which can be described as unconscionable. The denial
itself may be the unconscionable conduct (as it was in Baumgartner and also
in Muschinski). Precisely how this formulation differs from a judicial assess-
ment of what is fair and just is, with respect, difficult to discern. In criticising
the above mentioned Denning decisions, the authors of Jacobs' highlight dis-
crepancies between the actual contribution made by the claimant and the pro-
portionate interest granted. This suggests that detriment is the crucial factor.
Yet, as Kirby P said,56 the new unconscionability principle

44 Id, per Kirby P at 122-7; per Sheller JA at 139-142,144, per Samuels AJA at 150-153.
45 (1985) 160 CLR 593 at 614.
46 Idat615.
47 Above n l at 118,119.
48 Idat 137.
49 Id at 150.
50 (1963) 110 CLR 309 at 319.
51 Above nl, per Sheller JA at 137; per Samuels AJA at 150.
52 Meagher, R P and Gummow, W M C, Jacobs' Law of Trusts in Australia (5th edn, 1986).
53 [I9711 1 All ER 952.
54 [I9721 2 All ER 38.
55 Above nl, per Kirby P at 124.
56 Id at 126.
 SYDNEY LAW REVIEW [VOL 16: 412

should not lead the court back to family property law of twenty years ago by
the back door of a preoccupation with contributions, particularly financial
contributions,made by claimants of beneficial interests and at the time of the
acquisition of the property in question.
Kirby P cited Muschinski57 as authority for the proposition that constructive
trust reasoning may provide a remedy where the contributions of the parties
included not only "direct contributions in money or labour" but also "indirect
contributions in other forms such as support, home-making and family
care9'.58 (He did not, however, refer to the finding of a "failed joint venture"
which provided the rationale for taking all contributions into account in
Muschinski.) Kirby P supported the inclusion of non-monetary contributions
with evidence that such contributions had been taken into account by the High
Court in Baumgartner v Baumgartner and Mallett v Mallett59 and several
other marriage and de facto relationships cases heard in New South Wales and
Victoria.60 (It must be remembered, however, that some of these decisions
were based on application of statutory provisions, not general principles of the
common law.)
He concluded that Margaret's financial contributions on their own gave her
an equitable interest which the Court would protect by a declaration of a con-
structive trust. But he added: "I would for myself add the very considerable
economic value of the domestic services provided over such a long time by
Mrs Moate in the very house in question".61
Most importantly, Kirby P held that the trust survived her death and inured
to the benefit of her estate, and that it was consequently unconscionable for
George's executors to take the entire estate in disregard of her wishes.62 In
other words, Kirby P found that George held the legal estate as a trustee for
them both as tenants in common -not as joint tenants.
Samuels AJA disagreed entirely. He drew support from a Canadian deci-
sion, Rathwell v Rathwell,63 for the proposition that there must be a causal
connection between Margaret's contributions and the acquisition of the prop-
erty before the Court can determine "whether the 'spouse with title' is to be
accountable as a constructive trusteeW.64He found no such connection in this
case.
A requirement of causality is at least as stringent as the requirement for fi-
nancial contributions at the time of acquisition under the resulting trust doc-
trine. According to this formulation, the constructive trust does no more than
the resulting trust to address the concerns expressed above about the way in

57 Above n45 at 622.

58 Above nl at 123.
59 (1984)9 Fam LR 449.
60 Above nl per Kirby P at 125-6citing Hibberson v George (1989) 12 Fam LR 725 (NSW
CA); Lipman v Lipman (1989) 13 Fam LR 1; Ryan v Hopkinson (1990) 14 Fam LR 151
(SC NSW); Conn v Martusevicius (1991) 14 Fam LR 751 (SC Vic); Miller v Sutherland
(1990) 14 Fam LR 416 (SC NSW); Scoa v Briggs (1991) 14 Fam LR 661 (NSW CA) re
domestic services of a man dependent on a woman.
61 Abovenl at 127.
62 Id at 133.
63 (1978) 83 DLR (3d) 289.
64 Above nl at 152.
 VOTES 421

which Australian families acquire family assets. Such a requirement rein-

forces the predominance of financial contributions and so could be seen to
perpetuate inequalities between men and women in our society. Consider, for
instance, the High Court's solution in Baumgartner. Since the woman's con-
tribution to the pooled income was 45 per cent and the man's 55 per cent,
those were the shares each received on dissolution of the relationship (after
some adjustments in the man's favour for a deposit and mortgage payments
made after the break-up). Despite the advances made in ensuring equal wage
rates for the same work, average weekly earnings of women in Australia con-
tinue to fall short of the average weekly earnings of men.65 This reflects a
continuing tendency to pay lower rates for "feminised" occupations than for
predominantly "male" occupations, combined with a persistence of these em-
ployment pattems.66 While this situation persists, women generally will con-
tinue to be disadvantaged in the acquisition of property.
Also, while the domestic services women provide continue to be ignored in
calculations such as these, there is no scope for compensation for the impedi-
ment the provision of those services places on their ability to earn outside dol-
lars - other than through a property adjustment on divorce. Proportionate
calculations such as those supplied in Baumgartner suggest a mathematical
accuracy in the result, but this is entirely illusory. Income earned and pooled
is not necessarily all applied to acquiring assets. Disparities between con-
sumption by partners should also be calculated if the Court wishes to claim a
disinterested precision. For example, should a person who earns $1,000 per
week, but withdraws $500 to spend on purely personal indulgences each week
(gambling, partying or privately enjoyed hobbies, for instance), be entitled to
twice as big a share of the family assets as a partner who leaves an entire sal-
ary of $500 per week in the kitty? Critics may complain that this proposal
would be ridiculously complicated. So it would. So let us not pretend that we
can determine actual financial contributions accurately merely by comparing
the respective incomes of the parties.
Sheller JA reviewed Australian authority on the nature of constructive
trusts67 and, alone of all three judges clearly distinguished the constructive
trust from the resulting trust, and clearly laid aside notions of any requirement
for an intention to create either category of trust. He described the resulting
trust as that which "may be presumed in the absence of contrary intention
from the contribution of a party to the means of acquisition9',68 and the con-
structive trust as arising as a remedy for unconscionable conduct, "regardless
of intention proved or presumefl.69 On the facts he held that even if the pool-
ing of the parties' resources, "both financial and otherwise7',did warrant the
finding of a constructive trust, there was nothing unconscionable in George's
executors seeking to retain all the property, because Margaret had died first.

65 Graycar and Morgan, above n3 at 83 cite Woman at Work: Facts and Figures published
by the Women's Bureau in the Department of Employment, Education and Training, for
the fact that in 1987 and 1988 women earned on average 67 per cent of men's wages.
66 Id at 84.
67 Above nl at 139-141.
68 Idat 141.
69 Ibid.
422 SYDNEY LAW REVIEW WOL 16: 412

"There seems to me to be nothing unconscionable in one party retaining all

that property on the inevitable dissolution of that relationship when the other
dies9'.70
In the circumstances of this case, where both parties to the relationship had
died, Sheller JA's findings make practical sense. It is common, after all, for
couples to own property as joint tenants, so that there is a right of survivor-
ship. If Margaret had been a joint registered proprietor with George, her share
in the home would automatically go to George on her death, so that her will
purporting to leave her "real and personal estate" would not have passed any
interest in the Sans Souci home to her brother. It would be a strange result in-
deed if by establishing an equitable interest in the property Margaret would be
in a better position than a woman who was a legal joint tenant.
Sheller JA therefore did not have to decide whether Margaret's non-finan-
cia1 contributions did give rise to an equitable interest, so this case offers no
majority on the issue of whether, under general law, home-makers can acquire
an equitable interest in their homes.
It is impossible to construe what Sheller JA's decision might have been
had George died first. He said:
In such circumstances assuming no intention could be proved, her contribu-
tions to the relationship may have called for the imposition of a constructive
trust at least to the extent df a beneficial interest in the subject property for
life.71
An equitable life estate would have given Margaret a personal right to use the
property herself, but it would not have given her the full proprietary right en-
joyed by her husband to devise the property according to her own wishes.

7. Unjust Enrichment
Since the appellant raised an argument for unjust enrichment, two of the
judges took time to deal with it particularly, but in the result both Kirby P and
Sheller JA found that the principles of unjust enrichment (if any such princi-
ples can be said to exist in Australian law at this point in time) would not offer
a different solution in this case from those of the constructive trust. So in this
respect, Bryson v Bryant takes Australian law no further down "the endless
road to unattainable perfection in the law"72 than Toohey J's suggestion in
Baumgartner73 that unjust enrichment "is as capable of remedy and certain
application as is the notion of unconscionable conduct".

8. Conclusion
The majority decision in Bryson v Bryant shows a continuing reluctance by
the NSW Court of Appeal to till the ground broken by Deane J in Muschinski

70 Id at 144.
71 Ibid.
72 Kirby P above nl at p113, citing Lord Goff of Chieveley in Spiliada Maritime Corpora-
tion v Canrulex Ltd [I9871AC 460 at 488.
73 Above n5 at p1.53.
 VOTES 423

v Dodds. The peculiar facts of the case - Mrs Moate was effectively claim-
ing her equitable estate from the grave - may excuse the caution shown by
the majority on this occasion. Nevertheless, the clear inference from the case
is that women still face considerable obstacles in proving an equitable interest
in family assets under general law, because under general law, there is no con-
cept of "family assets".
To establish a resulting trust they must show a financial contribution at the
time title to the property was acquired. To establish a "common intention"
constructive trust they must prove a mercenary motive for their relationship.
To establish a constructive trust based on unconscionability they must prove a
relationship analogous to a commercial venture which had among its aims the
acquisition of property. Proving that any non-financial contributions to this
partnership warrant consideration in determining shares remains a major ob-
stacle to the home-maker.
In his concluding remarks, Samuels AJA said that there was no principle of
law which was capable of producing the result that "a wife would become en-
titled to any property acquired by the husband merely because she had carried
out her role as the home-maker9'.74 He said "[tlo produce such a conclusion
would ... carry the court beyond the furthest confines of judicial activism. ... It
is a matter for the Parliament9'.75
That precisely is the problem. Parliament has indeed addressed the inade-
quacies of the general law as far as property settlements on divorce are con-
cerned by the enactment of section 79 of The Family Law Act 1975. After
almost 20 years of operation, this legislation has encouraged women to be-
lieve they have rights in the family home, but these "rights" arise only by op-
eration of statute. They are not yet recognised in equity except where women
can bring themselves within the restrictive requirements of anachronistic and
in many respects artificial equitable doctrines.

JOELLEN RILEY*

74 Above nl at 153.
75 Ibid.
* Final year student, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, 1994. Many thanks to Rosalind
Atherton and Barbara McDonald for their helpful suggestions.