Majeda Aslan (Plaintiff) v Suroor Bin Mohamed AL Nahyan (Defendant) [2012] NSWSC 57

Majeda Aslan (Plaintiff) v Suroor Bin Mohamed AL Nahyan (Defendant) [2012] NSWSC 57

The Plaintiff's additional evidence showed only several inspections of properties in New South Wales over relatively short periods across about 10 years, which did not amount to a contribution that was considerable, large, or more than usual or ordinary. Although the evidence indicated substantial contributions in Abu Dhabi, s 15 required substantial contributions of the relevant kind to have been made in New South Wales. Because the jurisdictional requirements of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) were not established, there was no utility in reopening the default judgment application and default judgment was not granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Claim for Property Settlement and Maintenance Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 (nsw) / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Reopen an Application for Default Judgment and for Default Judgment Under UCPR Pt 16
Outcome
No jurisdiction to make an order under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) was established; leave to reopen the default judgment application was not granted; default judgment was not made.
Legal Topics
['default Judgment' 'jurisdiction Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 (nsw)' 'residence Requirements' 'substantial Contributions in New South Wales' 'de Facto Relationship Property and Maintenance Claims']
['practice and Procedure' 'equity' 'property Relationships'] ['default Judgment' 'jurisdiction Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 (nsw)' 'residence Requirements' 'substantial Contributions in New South Wales' 'de Facto Relationship Property and Maintenance Claims']

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

Claim for Property Settlement and Maintenance Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 (nsw) / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Reopen an Application for Default Judgment and for Default Judgment Under UCPR Pt 16

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court had jurisdiction under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) to make orders under Pt 3 of the Act.' "Whether the Plaintiff's further evidence established substantial contributions of the kind referred to in s 20(1)(a) or (b) made in New South Wales." 'Whether there was utility in granting leave to reopen the application for default judgment.' 'Whether default judgment should be granted in the absence of an appearance by the Defendant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff's additional evidence showed only several inspections of properties in New South Wales over relatively short periods across about 10 years, which did not amount to a contribution that was considerable, large, or more than usual or ordinary. Although the evidence indicated substantial contributions in Abu Dhabi, s 15 required substantial contributions of the relevant kind to have been made in New South Wales. Because the jurisdictional requirements of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) were not established, there was no utility in reopening the default judgment application and default judgment was not granted.

Court Disposition

No jurisdiction to make an order under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) was established; leave to reopen the default judgment application was not granted; default judgment was not made.

Orders

  • ['Leave to reopen the application for default judgment not granted.' 'No order for default judgment made.' 'Matter relisted before the Registrar in Equity for directions on 20 February 2012.']