Hrabalek v Hrabalek

Under Austrian law, where no notarised deed of gift exists, a valid gift requires both parties to intend an immediate gift and delivery of the property in completion of that intention. Public statements that ownership has changed do not establish a gift where the parties privately understood that it had not occurred. The court may determine only the factual issues necessary to resolve whether the required intention and delivery existed. Applying the burden of proof, the court found that the proposed gift of valuable cars had not been completed and that the intended recipient knew this. Ownership therefore remained with the original owner.

The claimant, an Austrian national, sought the return of four valuable Lancia Stratos cars from his son, the defendant. The defendant sought a declaration that the cars belonged to him. The cars had been acquired by the claimant and were later in the defendant’s possession.

The parties agreed that Austrian law governed the alleged transaction. They also agreed that, without a notarised deed of gift, a valid gift required a joint intention to make a gift and delivery of the property in completion of that intention. The central issue was whether the claimant had made the intended gift at or around a car meeting in 2000, or whether the parties had merely represented to others that ownership had changed.

1. The court determined only the factual issues necessary to resolve the central question. The parties’ general lack of credibility meant that their private, reliably recorded communications were of particular importance.

2. The parties agreed that, under Austrian law, a valid gift in the absence of a notarised deed required both parties to intend that a gift should occur and delivery of the property in completion of that joint intention.

3. Although the claimant had publicly stated that the cars would be given to the defendant, and material had been created presenting the defendant as owner, those matters were consistent with a pretence intended to enhance the defendant’s reputation. They did not establish that the legal requirements for a gift had been fulfilled.

4. The private communications, particularly the defendant’s email of 14 August 2007, treated the gift of the prototype as a future event. The defendant’s explanation that the email had been fabricated at the claimant’s request was wholly incredible. The correspondence demonstrated that neither party believed that the gift had already occurred.

5. The claimant satisfied the burden of proof. He had not made the gift, and the defendant knew that it had not been made. The four cars were and remained the claimant’s property.

Not stated in the judgment.