Catchwords:
EQUITY — ADVANCES OF MONEY — GIFTS — Purposes — Claim by the plaintiff to recover land purchased in the name of the defendant and other amounts of money transferred to the defendant — Recovery of the property is said to be justified in various ways, including a resulting trust, express trust, a common intention constructive trust and money had and received — Presentation of the plaintiff’s case permeated by alternative claim that he, in vulnerable circumstances under a ‘special disadvantage’, was prevailed upon by the defendant and her husband (alleged to be a Sovereign Citizen) as leaders of a cult through undue influence and unconscionable conduct to pay over moneys for the purpose of promoting an illusory ‘Kindom Motherland’ being allegedly a cockamamie purpose — Claims that defendant and husband were cult leaders and that the husband was a Sovereign Citizen rejected — Claims of alleged undue influence and unconscionable conduct rejected — Finding that funds were gifted with the primary purpose of development of a community consistent with a charitable trust, and an incidental purpose to benefit the Cristian family — Held property accordingly unrecoverable by the plaintiff WORDS AND PHRASES — ‘Sovereign Citizen’ — ‘Cult’— ‘Gift’ EQUITY — ADVANCES OF MONEY — GIFTS — Principles discussed — Capacity requirements — Various purposes discussed distinguishing predominant purpose and incidental purposes EQUITY — Trusts — Resulting Trust — Purchase money trusts — Contest regarding purpose, if any, of provision of funds used to purchase a farm — Defendant and husband under the name ‘Love for Life’ espouse ideas regarding ‘Kin Domains’ (a form of family homestead) and aspire to build a community on land ‘where no one owns the land’, growing enough food and maintaining the land such that they and others can leave ‘the System’ and benefit the broader community through provision of free food — Plaintiff first emailed the defendant and her husband in 2008 expressing interest in their ‘Kindom’ — Plaintiff later messaged defendant’s husband from 2017, making the first payment into the defendant’s account — From April 2022, communications between the plaintiff and defendant’s husband along with payments into the defendant’s account heavily increased — Plaintiff initially transferred $100,000 in April 2022 and, consequent upon the parties locating a suitable property, wrote a cheque for $575,000 in September 2022 EQUITY — Trusts — Charitable trusts — Charitable purposes — Whether the identified purpose is a valid charitable purpose — Discussion of the fourth head of Commissioner for Special Purposes of Income Tax v Pemsel [1891] AC 531 — Held purpose is within the spirit and intendment of the Statute of Elizabeth — Whether the public benefit element — Held it meets the public benefit test — Held valid charitable trust EQUITY — Trusts — Charitable Trust — Trusts with mixed purposes — Discussion of Charitable Trusts Act 1993 (NSW) s 23 — Determined that incidental benefit to the Cristian family did not invalidate the primary charitable purpose EQUITY — Trusts — Charitable Trust — The trust does not fail for impossibility or impracticability EQUITY — Unconscionable conduct and undue influence — Alternative submission by plaintiff that the defendant procured the purchase funds from the plaintiff by exercising undue influence — Plaintiff submits defendant and her husband threatened him and others with physical violence, manipulated him into providing further funds as the only way to ‘save’ the $100,000 he had transferred, and by generally targeting and exploiting him — Submissions rejected CIVIL PROCEDURE — Litigants in person —Distinguishing between submissions and evidence