HIBBERSON v GEORGE [1989] NSWCA 100

HIBBERSON v GEORGE [1989] NSWCA 100

It would be unconscionable for the respondent to retain sole beneficial ownership of the property given the appellant's contributions to its improvement and household expenses, even without formal pooling of resources. The appellant is entitled to a 40% beneficial interest, subject to reimbursement of the respondent's principal investment and adjustments for contributions, because the evidence supports a significant (but not equal) input by the appellant. The De Facto Relationships Act 1984 does not apply as the de facto relationship ended prior to 1 July 1985.

Parties
Appellant: Maree Hibberson; Respondent: Lance Allen George
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 1989
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Constructive Trusts, De Facto Relationships, Adjustments of Beneficial Interest, Unconscionability in Property Distribution
Equity Family Law Property Law Constructive Trusts De Facto Relationships Adjustments of Beneficial Interest Unconscionability in Property Distribution

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maree Hibberson

Appellant

Lance Allen George

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to a beneficial interest in the property held in the respondent's name by way of constructive trust.
  2. 2 Whether the De Facto Relationships Act 1984 applies to this case based on the timing of the separation.
  3. 3 Quantum of contributions by the appellant for improvements and the rights to reimbursement or recognition of beneficial interest.

Ratio Decidendi

It would be unconscionable for the respondent to retain sole beneficial ownership of the property given the appellant's contributions to its improvement and household expenses, even without formal pooling of resources. The appellant is entitled to a 40% beneficial interest, subject to reimbursement of the respondent's principal investment and adjustments for contributions, because the evidence supports a significant (but not equal) input by the appellant. The De Facto Relationships Act 1984 does not apply as the de facto relationship ended prior to 1 July 1985.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Declaration and orders made by Cohen J set aside.
  • Declare that the respondent holds the land on trust for himself beneficially as to 60% and for the appellant as to 40%.