Ziino v Crabtree [2005] NSWSC 468

Ziino v Crabtree [2005] NSWSC 468

The Plaintiff did not establish that the parties were living in a de facto relationship, so he had no standing for relief under s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984. However, the Plaintiff's payments toward the Defendant's mortgage and driveway were made while the parties were having an affair and in...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Proceedings Concerning Property Adjustment, Constructive Trust, Restitution or Damages, and a Cross Claim / Hearing Before a Master; Proceedings Stood Over for Short Minutes And, If Desired, Argument as to Costs
Outcome
The Plaintiff failed on the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 claim but succeeded on constructive trust and moneys had and received findings; the Defendant's cross-claim was to be dismissed; proceedings were stood over for short minutes and possible costs argument.
Legal Topics
['de Facto Relationship' 'domestic Relationship' 'property (relationships) Act 1984, S 20' 'constructive Trusts' 'moneys Had and Received' 'cross Claim for Rent or Occupation Fee and Wages']
['family Law' 'equity' 'trusts' 'restitution' 'property Law'] ['de Facto Relationship' 'domestic Relationship' 'property (relationships) Act 1984, S 20' 'constructive Trusts' 'moneys Had and Received' 'cross Claim for Rent or Occupation Fee and Wages']

Source-derived case record

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

Equity Division Proceedings Concerning Property Adjustment, Constructive Trust, Restitution or Damages, and a Cross Claim / Hearing Before a Master; Proceedings Stood Over for Short Minutes And, If Desired, Argument as to Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Plaintiff and Defendant were in a de facto relationship giving standing to seek relief under s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984.' "Whether a constructive trust should be imposed on the Peakhurst property or its sale proceeds because of the Plaintiff's financial contributions." "Whether the Defendant was liable to repay payments received from the Plaintiff's bank account as moneys had and received to the use of the Plaintiff." "Whether the Defendant established her cross-claim for rent or occupation fee and payment for work in the Plaintiff's business."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff did not establish that the parties were living in a de facto relationship, so he had no standing for relief under s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984. However, the Plaintiff's payments toward the Defendant's mortgage and driveway were made while the parties were having an affair and in circumstances supporting an expectation of marriage or a closer relationship, making it contrary to equitable principle for the Defendant to retain the benefit without a constructive trust over the Peakhurst sale proceeds. The Defendant was also liable to repay unauthorised or purpose-failed payments as moneys had and received, and her cross-claim failed because no express or implied...

Court Disposition

The Plaintiff failed on the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 claim but succeeded on constructive trust and moneys had and received findings; the Defendant's cross-claim was to be dismissed; proceedings were stood over for short minutes and possible costs argument.

Orders

  • ['I order that the proceedings be stood over to a date to be fixed by arrangement with my Associate, for the bringing in of short minutes and, if desired, for argument as to costs.']