Davies v Winters [2020] NSWSC 375

Davies v Winters [2020] NSWSC 375

The Court found it more likely than not that each purchase of the St Georges Crescent and Wigram Road properties was preceded by an agreement that, on sale of the particular property, net proceeds would be equally shared. The plaintiff's claim to Wigram Road was therefore reciprocal with his obligation to account for the defendant's share of St Georges Crescent proceeds, traced into the Double Bay property. After taking into account those proceeds, agreed property values, the parties' informal financial dealings, and their non-financial contributions including the defendant's greater homemaker and primary carer role, a just and equitable adjustment was that the plaintiff retain Double Bay...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Property Adjustment Proceedings Between Former De Facto Partners Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 NSW and in Equity / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Orders to be made for adjustment of property interests under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 NSW.
Legal Topics
['de Facto Relationship' 'adjustment of Property Interests' 'beneficial Ownership' 'trusts' 'extension of Time' 'property Settlement']
['property Law' 'equity' 'domestic Relationships'] ['de Facto Relationship' 'adjustment of Property Interests' 'beneficial Ownership' 'trusts' 'extension of Time' 'property Settlement']

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

Property Adjustment Proceedings Between Former De Facto Partners Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 NSW and in Equity / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["When the parties' de facto relationship ceased for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 NSW." 'Whether time should be extended under section 18(2) for applications under section 20.' 'Whether there was an agreement that investment properties acquired during the relationship would be shared equally on sale.' "Whether the plaintiff had a beneficial interest in the Wigram Road property registered in the defendant's name." "Whether the defendant's entitlement to proceeds of the St Georges Crescent property should be brought into account against the plaintiff's claim to the Wigram Road property." 'What adjustment of property interests was just and equitable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found it more likely than not that each purchase of the St Georges Crescent and Wigram Road properties was preceded by an agreement that, on sale of the particular property, net proceeds would be equally shared. The plaintiff's claim to Wigram Road was therefore reciprocal with his obligation to account for the defendant's share of St Georges Crescent proceeds, traced into the Double Bay property. After taking into account those proceeds, agreed property values, the parties' informal financial dealings, and their non-financial contributions including the defendant's greater homemaker and primary carer role, a just and equitable adjustment was that the plaintiff retain Double Bay...

Court Disposition

Orders to be made for adjustment of property interests under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 NSW.

Orders

  • ['Time was extended under section 18(2) for each party to make an application under section 20 in the proceedings.' 'The plaintiff is to retain the Double Bay property unencumbered by any claim by the defendant.' 'The Wigram Road property is to be held by the defendant on trust for the parties as tenants in common,...