Ergun v Ale [1999] NSWSC 836

Ergun v Ale [1999] NSWSC 836

The plaintiff's financial contributions, including the net proceeds of the Fairfield unit derived from his mother's advance and applied to the purchase of the Lidcombe property, justified the plaintiff receiving $34,007 more than the defendant from the sale proceeds. The court was not satisfied that further advances of $10,000 for a van and boat should be deducted from the net proceeds. The defendant's cross-claim was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 1999
Procedural Posture
De Facto Relationship Property Adjustment and Sale of Jointly Owned House Property / Judgment on the Plaintiff's Claim and the Defendant's Cross Claim After Hearing
Outcome
Orders made substantially in favour of the plaintiff; cross-claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
['adjustment of Property Interests' 'joint Tenancy' 'contributions to De Facto Relationship' 'statutory Trustees for Sale' 'costs']
['equity' 'de Facto Relationships' 'property Law'] ['adjustment of Property Interests' 'joint Tenancy' 'contributions to De Facto Relationship' 'statutory Trustees for Sale' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

De Facto Relationship Property Adjustment and Sale of Jointly Owned House Property / Judgment on the Plaintiff's Claim and the Defendant's Cross Claim After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Lidcombe property should be sold and the mortgage to St. George Bank discharged from the proceeds of sale.' "Whether the advance originally made by the plaintiff's mother should be repaid from the proceeds of sale before equal division, or from the plaintiff's share only." "Whether the plaintiff's direct and indirect financial contributions exceeded the defendant's contributions as homemaker and parent." "Whether the defendant's cross-claim for adjustment of property interests should succeed."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's financial contributions, including the net proceeds of the Fairfield unit derived from his mother's advance and applied to the purchase of the Lidcombe property, justified the plaintiff receiving $34,007 more than the defendant from the sale proceeds. The court was not satisfied that further advances of $10,000 for a van and boat should be deducted from the net proceeds. The defendant's cross-claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Orders made substantially in favour of the plaintiff; cross-claim dismissed.

Orders

  • ['I make orders as in prayer 1 (substituting in paragraph (a) $34,007 for $50,000 and omitting therefrom paragraph (b)), and prayers 2, 3, and 4 in the statement of claim.' 'I order that the cross-claim be dismissed.' 'I order that the defendant pay the costs of the plaintiff of the proceedings.' 'The exhibits may...