Dries v Ryan [2000] NSWSC 1163
Because the parties never lived together in a de facto relationship, statutory property relief under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 was unavailable. The Contracts Review Act 1980 claim failed because the relevant contract was not in evidence, the transfer was not a contract between the parties attracting the Act, and the proceedings were not properly constituted for such relief. However, it would be unconscionable and inequitable for the defendant to retain more than a one half beneficial interest in the Gymea property because the plaintiff contributed $30,000 and assumed joint and several liability under the $120,000 mortgage; accordingly the property was held on constructive...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 December 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Equity Division Proceedings Seeking Property Relief Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984, Constructive Trust Relief, and Contracts Review Act 1980 Relief, With a Cross Claim Concerning a Company Share / Hearing and Determination Before a Master After Referral by Bryson J; Matter Stood Over for Short Minutes of Order
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's claims under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 and Contracts Review Act 1980 dismissed; plaintiff entitled to constructive trust relief giving her a one half interest in the Gymea property; defendant entitled to relief on the cross-claim declaring the plaintiff's company share held on trust for him;...
- Legal Topics
- ['alleged De Facto Relationship' 'constructive Trust Over Real Property' 'unequal Registered Interests as Tenants in Common' 'contracts Review Act 1980' 'occupation Fee Between Co Owners' 'resulting or Express Trust Over Company Share']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Proceedings Seeking Property Relief Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984, Constructive Trust Relief, and Contracts Review Act 1980 Relief, With a Cross Claim Concerning a Company Share / Hearing and Determination Before a Master After Referral by Bryson J; Matter Stood Over for Short Minutes of Order
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the plaintiff and defendant lived together in a de facto relationship attracting relief under section 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984.' 'Whether the transfer or purchase arrangements for 255 Sylvania Road, Gymea attracted relief under the Contracts Review Act 1980.' 'Whether the circumstances of the acquisition of the Gymea property gave rise to a constructive trust beneficially in equal shares despite registration as tenants in common in one-seventh and six-sevenths shares.' 'Whether the defendant should account for a notional occupation fee for residing in the Gymea property.' 'Whether the plaintiff held her one share in Ryan Air Conditioning Pty Limited beneficially or on trust for the defendant.']
Ratio Decidendi
Because the parties never lived together in a de facto relationship, statutory property relief under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 was unavailable. The Contracts Review Act 1980 claim failed because the relevant contract was not in evidence, the transfer was not a contract between the parties attracting the Act, and the proceedings were not properly constituted for such relief. However, it would be unconscionable and inequitable for the defendant to retain more than a one half beneficial interest in the Gymea property because the plaintiff contributed $30,000 and assumed joint and several liability under the $120,000 mortgage; accordingly the property was held on constructive...
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's claims under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 and Contracts Review Act 1980 dismissed; plaintiff entitled to constructive trust relief giving her a one half interest in the Gymea property; defendant entitled to relief on the cross-claim declaring the plaintiff's company share held on trust for him;...
Orders
- ["The matter was stood over to a date to be fixed by arrangement with the Master's Associate for the purpose of bringing in short minutes of order to reflect the reasons and conclusions, and, if either party so desired, for submissions as to costs."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment