Howland v Ellis [1999] NSWSC 1142

Howland v Ellis [1999] NSWSC 1142

Plaintiff failed to establish entitlement to property orders or constructive trust, as his contributions were outweighed by defendant's financial and indirect contributions; proceedings were out of time and leave to proceed was refused as greater hardship not established; as a result plaintiff's claim was dismissed. Defendant was declared sole beneficial owner and entitled to removal of caveat; her maintenance claim was dismissed due to lack of evidence of need and plaintiff's inability to pay.

Parties
Plaintiff and Cross Defendant: John Howland; Defendant and Cross Claimant: Lalla Carmela Ellis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Equity (de Facto Property and Maintenance) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiff's proceedings dismissed; defendant declared beneficial owner; order for removal of caveat; maintenance refused; costs against plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Adjustment of Property Interests, De Facto Relationships, Constructive Trust, Limitation and Extension of Time, Statutory Trusts, Maintenance, Caveats
Family Law Equity Property Law Adjustment of Property Interests De Facto Relationships Constructive Trust Limitation and Extension of Time Statutory Trusts +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Howland

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

Lalla Carmela Ellis

Defendant and Cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Equity (de Facto Property and Maintenance) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff entitled to property adjustment orders under De Facto Relationships Act 1984
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to extend limitation period for proceedings commenced out of time
  3. 3 Whether constructive trust arises benefiting the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to establish entitlement to property orders or constructive trust, as his contributions were outweighed by defendant's financial and indirect contributions; proceedings were out of time and leave to proceed was refused as greater hardship not established; as a result plaintiff's claim was dismissed. Defendant was declared sole beneficial owner and entitled to removal of caveat; her maintenance claim was dismissed due to lack of evidence of need and plaintiff's inability to pay.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's proceedings dismissed; defendant declared beneficial owner; order for removal of caveat; maintenance refused; costs against plaintiff.

Orders

  • Proceedings dismissed.
  • Declaration that defendant is beneficial owner of 12 Jinatong Street, Miranda.