Hancock v Leech [2009] NSWSC 872

Hancock v Leech [2009] NSWSC 872

The Plaintiff was entitled to relief under section 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 to reflect her direct and indirect contributions, including the purchase of APG shares with her own money and other financial contributions, as the First Defendant was in default and all factual allegations were deemed...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: Patricia Margaret Hancock; First Defendant: William Leech; Second Defendant: Christopher John Anthony Leech; Third Defendant: Mineral Sands Technology Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Family Law – De Facto Property Adjustment / Final Hearing – Ex Parte Against First Defendant
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff – ex parte against First Defendant
Legal Topics
De Facto Relationships, Property Adjustment, Default Judgment, Costs
Family Law De Facto Relationships Property Adjustment Default Judgment Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Margaret Hancock

Plaintiff

William Leech

First Defendant

Christopher John Anthony Leech

Second Defendant

Mineral Sands Technology Pty Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Law – De Facto Property Adjustment / Final Hearing – Ex Parte Against First Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff and First Defendant were living in a de facto relationship from October 1994 to 4 December 2006
  2. 2 What adjustment of property is just and equitable under s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff was entitled to relief under section 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 to reflect her direct and indirect contributions, including the purchase of APG shares with her own money and other financial contributions, as the First Defendant was in default and all factual allegations were deemed admitted. The Plaintiff was entitled to a monetary order for $697,710, plus costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff – ex parte against First Defendant

Orders

  • Declaration that Plaintiff and First Defendant were living in a de facto relationship from October 1994 to 4 December 2006
  • First Defendant to pay Plaintiff the sum of $697,710