Muschinski v Dodds

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
CourtHigh Court
Neutral Citation[1985] HCA 78,1985-1206 HCA B
Year1985
Date1985

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
455 cases
5 firm's commentaries
11 books & journal articles
  • 'The receipt of what?': Questions concerning third party recipient liability in equity and unjust enrichment.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 31 No. 1, April 2007
    • 1 April 2007
    ...(121) See, eg, Stephenson Nominees Pty Ltd v Official Receiver (1987) 16 FCR 536, 552 (Gummow J). (122) See, eg, Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583. The English courts do not recognise the remedial constructive trust: Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Counci......
  • UNAUTHORISED FIDUCIARY GAINS AND THE CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2016, December 2016
    • 1 December 2016
    ...“Can Sense Be Made of the Remedial Constructive Trust?” (University of Western Australia Law School, 1999). See also Muschinski v Dodds(1985) 160 CLR 583 at 613–614. 106 See, eg, Gbolahan Elias, Explaining Constructive Trusts (Clarendon Press, 1990), who suggested that constructive trusts f......
  • Interests in the family home: constructive trusts and estoppel compared
    • Barbados
    • Caribbean Law Review No. 3-1, June 1993
    • 1 June 1993
    ...[1991] 1 A.C.107. The fiercest criticism came from Australia: see, e.g., Allen v. Snyder [1977] 2 N.S.W.L.R. 685; Muschinski v. Dodds (1984) 62 A.L.R. 429. 5 Muschinski v. Dodds (1984) 62 A.L.R. 429 (Deane J.); Baumgartner v. Baumgartner (1987) 76 A.L.R. 75 (Toohey J.). 6 (1980) High Court,......
  • UNJUST ENRICHMENT, PROPRIETARY SUBROGATION AND UNSATISFACTORY EXPLANATIONS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2016, December 2016
    • 1 December 2016
    ...LBC[1996] AC 669 at 714–716, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson; El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc[1993] 3 All ER 717. 77Muschinski v Dodds(1985) 160 CLR 583; Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 2)[2012] FCAFC 6; [2012] FCR 296. There are signs of its acceptance in New Zealand: Commonwealth Reserves......
  • Get Started for Free