Austin v Hornby
[2011] NSWSC 1059
•08 September 2011
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Austin v Hornby [2011] NSWSC 1059 Hearing dates: 13 & 14 July 2011 Decision date: 08 September 2011 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Ward J Decision: Order for the payment of moneys as return of contributions to failed joint endeavour between parties on Baumgartner principles. No order under Property (Relationships) Act claim.
Catchwords: TRUSTS - whether plaintiff's interest in real property at time of sale held on trust for cross-claimant and second cross-defendant - whether proceeds of sale of real property held on constructive or implied trust - HELD - beneficial interest in real property held at all times by plaintiff/first cross-defendant - plaintiff liable to pay portion of proceeds of sale to defendant/cross-claimant on failure of joint endeavour - no need to impose constructive trust - DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS - application for adjustment of property interests pursuant to s 20(1) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) - HELD - no adjustment warranted in light of conclusion on constructive trust claim Legislation Cited: Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth)
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW)
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)Cases Cited: Allen v Tobias (1958) 98 CLR 367
Bathurst City Council v PWC Properties Pty Limited [1998] HCA 59; (1998) 195 CLR 566
Baumgartner v Baumgartner [1987] HCA 59; (1987) 164 CLR 137
Beavan v Fallshaw (1992) 15 Fam LR 686
Bilous v Mudaliar (2006) 65 NSWLR 615
Bryson v Bryant (1992) 29 NSWLR 188
Cetojevic v Cetojevic [2006] NSWSC 431
Cetojevic v Cetojevic [2007] NSWCA 33
Chanter v Catts [2005] NSWCA 411; (2005) 64 NSWLR 360
Commonwealth of Australia v McLean (1996) 41 NSWLR 389
Davey v Lee (1990) 13 Fam LR 688; DFC 95-084
Davies v Dabela [2011] NSWSC 12
Delany v Tenison (1758) 3 Bro PC 659; 1 ER 1559
Dwyer v Kaljo (1987) 11 Fam LR 785
Evans v Marmont (1997) 42 NSWLR 70
Friend v Brooker [2009] HCA 21; (2009) 239 CLR 129
Gazzola v Gazzola [1990] HCA 13; (1990) 92 ALR 45
Giumelli v Giumelli [1999] HCA 10; (1999) 196 CLR 101
Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638; 2 All ER 426
Gray v Haig (1855) 20 Beav 219; 52 ER 587
Green v Green (1989) 17 NSWLR 343
Green v Robinson (1995) 36 NSWLR 96
Harris v Schembri (1995) DFC 95-166
Henderson v Miles (No 2) (2005) 12 BPR 23,579
Howlett v Neilson [2005] NSWCA 149; (2005) 33 Fam LR 402
Jackson v Jackson [1999] NSWSC 229
Jones v Dunkel [1959] ALR 367; (1959) 101 CLR 298
Kardos v Sarbutt [2006] NSWCA 11; (2006) 34 Fam LR 550
Liquor National Wholesale Pty Limited v Redrock Co Pty Limited [2007] NSWSC 392
Little v Saunders [2004] NSWSC 655
Manns v Kennedy [2007] NSWCA 217; (2007) 37 Fam LR 489
McKay & anor v McKay [2008] NSWSC 177
Miller v Sutherland (1990) 14 Fam LR 416
Muschinski v Dodds [1985] HCA 78; (1985) 160 CLR 583
NWR FM t/a North West Radio v Broadcasting Commission of Ireland & Anor [2004] IEHC 109
Paino v Paino [2008] NSWCA 276; (2008) 40 Fam LR 96
Parianos v Melluish (Trustee) [2003] FCA 190; (2003) 30 Fam LR 524
Ross v Elderfield [2006] NSWCA 192
Ryan v Kalocsay [2010] NSWSC 620
Selmore v Bull [2005] NSWCA 365; (2005) 34 Fam LR 488
Sharpless v McKibbin [2007] NSWSC 1498
Shepherd v Doolan [2005] NSWSC 42
Smith v Pearson [2011] NSWSC 600
Stowe v Stowe (1995) 15 WAR 363
The Ophelia [1916] 2 AC 206
Vollmer v Hauber Davidson [2006] NSWCA 79
Wallace v Stanford (1995) 37 NSWLR 1; 19 Fam LR 430
West v Mead [2003] NSWSC 161; (2003) 13 BPR 24,431Texts Cited: Heydon and Leeming, Jacobs' Law of Trusts in Australia (6th and 7th edn)
Parkinson, "Doing Equity between de facto spouses: From Calverley v Green to Baumgartner" (1988) 11 Adelaide Law Review 370Category: Principal judgment Parties: Margaret Elderton Anderson Austin (Plaintiff/First Cross-Defendant)
Gregory Anthony Hornby (Defendant/Cross-Claimant)
Veronica Margaret Austin (Second Cross-Defendant)Representation: Counsel
P J Livingstone (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendants)
G P McNally SC with Ms T Gordon (Defendant/Cross-Claimant)
Solicitors
Rafton Family Lawyers ((Plaintiff/Cross-Defendants)
Matthews Dooley & Gibson (Defendant/Cross-Claimant)
File Number(s): 10/272508
Judgment
HER HONOUR : These proceedings were commenced by Mrs Margaret Austin by Summons filed on 17 August 2010, seeking the release to her of the sum of $200,000 presently held in her solicitor's trust account, which moneys the defendant, Mr Gregory Hornby (the former de facto partner of Mrs Austin's daughter, Ms Veronica Austin), claims are held on a constructive or implied trust for him. Without intending any disrespect, I will refer to each of the parties by his or her given name.
The sum of $200,000 represents the balance of the net proceeds of sale of a property at Kurrajong (after payment out of the mortgagee and sale expenses and after the payment of an amount of $360,670 to Veronica at the time of completion). It was paid into Margaret's solicitor's trust account to be held pending the resolution of the disputes in the current proceedings (in order to secure the withdrawal of a caveat placed on the Kurrajong property by Gregory and hence permit completion of the sale in question).
Gregory brings two discrete claims by way of Amended Cross-Summons in these proceedings:
(i) as against Margaret, he seeks a declaration that the Kurrajong property was held, as at 1998, on trust for Veronica and, as at the date of sale in 2010, on trust for Veronica and him jointly; alternatively, a declaration that the sum of $200,000 is held pursuant to a constructive or implied trust for him;
(ii) as against Veronica (but pressed only if his claim against Margaret fails or a constructive trust is imposed for less than the amount claimed by Gregory on the constructive trust claim), Gregory brings a claim under s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) for an adjustment of interests with respect to the property of his domestic relationship with Veronica (the amount so claimed by way of an adjustment of the said property interests being specified in the Amended Cross-Summons as $180,000, that representing roughly half of the proceeds of sale received by Veronica) and consequential relief to facilitate payment of that sum.
When the hearing commenced, Senior Counsel for Gregory (Mr McNally SC) made it clear that, whether in the alternative or in aggregate, Gregory's claim is not (as Margaret and Veronica had perceived it to be) for any sum over and above the proceeds held in the solicitor's trust account (i.e. $200,000).
There is no dispute that there was at one time a domestic relationship between Gregory and Veronica within the meaning of the Property (Relationships) Act . The dispute is as to when that relationship came to an end. Veronica (who consents to the order sought by her mother in relation to the payment out of the $200,000) maintains that the relationship came to an end in December 2005 and therefore that Gregory's Property (Relationships) Act claim has not been made in time. If that contention is correct, then Gregory seeks leave pursuant to s 18(2) of the Act to bring his claim against Veronica. For his part, Gregory maintains that the couple lived in a de facto relationship from about March 1997 to about late 2006 and then again from late 2007 until January 2009 (although he was vague not only as to the precise dates on which the relationship first came to an end but also as to when it recommenced and subsequently terminated).
Gregory's claim against Margaret is put on the basis of an implied or constructive trust arising out of the arrangements pursuant to which he carried out or contributed to particular improvements to the Kurrajong property (in the form of a shed and then a more substantial house built on the property). His claim against Veronica under the Property (Relationships) Act is based upon the substantial benefit that he says Veronica has obtained, out of the sale proceeds of the Kurrajong property, from the work that he performed on the property.
Issues
The issues to be determined are therefore:
(i) was the Kurrajong property held on trust by Margaret for Veronica and/or Veronica and Gregory at the relevant times or, in the alternative, are the proceeds of sale of the Kurrajong property held on implied or constructive trust for Gregory?
(ii) is Gregory now able to maintain a Property (Relationships) Act claim for an adjustment of the property interests of his relationship with Veronica and, if so, is it just and equitable that any order for adjustment of property interests be made, having regard to the contributions of each falling within s 20(1)(a) and (b) of the Act?
Logically, the trust claims fall to be determined first, since any determination of the Property (Relationships) Act claim (assuming leave is either not necessary or is given for the bringing of Gregory's claim) must involve an assessment of the property of the couple and their respective contributions to that property during the course of the relationship.
There are numerous factual issues in dispute between the parties, including whether Gregory contributed money towards the improvement of the Kurrajong property or to the living expenses of the household (through a settlement reached with his former wife and/or by way of income from his earnings as a bricklayer over the period); what work was done by Gregory in the construction of the improvements and the value of that work (compared with work done by paid or volunteer tradesmen or members of the Austin family including Veronica) and what work was done after the relationship between Gregory and Veronica had (on any view) come to an end; what was said to Gregory as to the basis on which he and Veronica would live (and build) on the property; and when Gregory first became aware that Margaret was the sole registered proprietor of the property. A critical issue (since it goes to whether leave is necessary for the Property (Relationships) Act claim) is the date on which the domestic relationship between Gregory and Veronica came to an end.
Summary
For the reasons set out below, I am of the view that:
(i)(a) the beneficial interest in the Kurrajong property was at all relevant times held by Margaret;
(b) the sum of $100,000 out of the proceeds of sale of the Kurrajong property presently retained in Margaret's solicitor's trust account should be paid to Gregory (with any interest thereon) by way of recoupment by Gregory of the contributions he made to the failed joint endeavour between the parties (with the balance to be paid to Margaret) but no declaration of a constructive trust over the proceeds is necessary in the circumstances;
(ii)(a) the domestic relationship between Veronica and Gregory did resume for part of 2008 and subsisted at least as at December 2008 and therefore Gregory is now able to maintain a Property (Relationships) Act claim for an adjustment of the property interests of his relationship with Veronica;
(b) I not been so satisfied then I would not have granted leave now to make such a claim since I am not satisfied (having regard to the order to be made in accordance with my finding in (i) above) that there is a greater hardship to Gregory if leave is not granted than the hardship to Veronica if it is); and
(c) I am not satisfied that it is just and equitable to make any order for the adjustment of the property interests of the parties to the relationship out of the divisible pool of their assets (taking into account the order to be made in accordance with (i) above and having regard to the contributions of each falling within s 20(1)(a) and (b) of the Act).
Background Facts
- Initial purchase of Kurrajong property
Margaret, now a widow in her early 70's, was at all material times the sole registered proprietor on the title of the Kurrajong property. The property was bought with cash when her late husband was still alive but in her name as he was ill.
In her first affidavit (sworn 23 September 2010), Margaret says that she initially purchased the (then vacant) Kurrajong property (comprising 12 acres) in about 1990. However, as the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) transfer in her favour was registered in May 1995, it seems likely (and Margaret conceded as much in the witness box) that her memory as to the timing of events at least in this regard is unreliable. I say this without criticism of Margaret, who presented as a truthful witness and gave her evidence directly and without fuss. She conceded that her recollection of the chronology of various events could be wrong.
Similarly, Margaret's evidence as to the time at which a mortgage was first granted by her over the property is unreliable. In her September 2010 affidavit, Margaret says that the first time a mortgage was obtained against the property was in about 1996 for an amount of approximately $180,000 and that it was taken out in the joint names of herself and Veronica, the purpose of so doing being to build a dwelling on the Kurrajong property ([18], [19], [21]) and then refinanced and increased to $380,000 in about 2000. However, there is no evidence that there was a mortgage on the property prior to Veronica moving onto the property in 1998 nor was there any such mortgage prior to the taking out of an NAB flexiplus mortgage facility in about 2002 (to which Veronica deposes in her affidavit of 29 October 2010 and which is pleaded in the Defence to Cross-Summons). Further, Margaret's evidence in this regard is internally inconsistent with her evidence that Gregory had told Veronica and her how much they would need the mortgage to cover (T 86) (since the relationship with Gregory had not yet commenced in 1996). Margaret conceded in the witness box that it could have been that the first mortgage was taken out in June 2002 and refinanced in November 2002 (86.41) and that seems to be the case.
The purchase price disclosed on the 1995 transfer was $144,000.00. The Kurrajong property was later sold by Margaret (at Veronica's suggestion) in April 2010 (by which time there was a large house and shed on the property) for the sum of $925,000. At that time, the NAB flexiplus mortgage over the property secured borrowings of $338,000 (the bulk of which are said to have been incurred in relation to the construction of the house on the property). After the mortgage was discharged (and other expenses paid), the net proceeds amounted to about $587,000, of which the sum of $360,670 was paid by way of cheque drawn in favour of Veronica, in accordance with the settlement instructions (presumably given by Margaret as vendor) (see settlement sheet attached to the affidavit sworn 18 October 2010 by Gregory's solicitor, Mr Mark Ford). (As noted earlier, prior to the settlement, Gregory had lodged a caveat over the title, which led to the agreement under which payment of the sum of $200,000 remains held in the solicitor's trust account.)
In Margaret's September affidavit, she deposed that the balance of the funds paid on completion of the sale (after sale fees, payment of the mortgage and the sum paid into the trust account) was paid to her ([6(d)]). However, as noted above, the settlement sheet on completion disclosed payment of $360,670 by cheque drawn payable to Veronica and the funds appear to have been paid into a bank account in Veronica's name. Margaret was adamant in the witness box that those moneys were not paid to her (contrary to her earlier sworn affidavit evidence, which she said was a mistake) and that Veronica "got the balance that was left" (T 84.49). Veronica denies this (a matter to which I later return). Margaret does, however, maintain that it was not her intention that all the sales proceeds go to Veronica "because she had to pay me for the land" (T 85.49) and hence she is seeking the release to her of the $200.000.
The parties have obtained a joint valuation report (from Mr KD Wood) which assesses the unimproved value of the land at the relevant times at $430,000, thus enabling the value of improvements to be assessed having regard to the ultimate sale price of $925,000.
- Commencement of the relationship between Gregory and Veronica
There is a factual dispute as to when Gregory and Veronica commenced living together in a de facto relationship. As noted above, Gregory says they cohabited from about March 1997 until about late 2006 and again from late 2007 until January 2009. (As discussed later, Gregory's recollection of the dates is unreliable. In cross-examination he put his initial departure at various times in 2006 and his later departure at around Christmas 2008 - T 42.41, though later he suggested that he was living at a property in Kermond "like a refuge" at that time "when things got into trouble" for a couple of days - T 63, which might be consistent with a departure in early 2009). Veronica accepts that there was a de facto relationship but says that it commenced in about mid-1998 (when they moved to the Kurrajong property) and that the final separation occurred in December 2005. (Depending on which version of the evidence is accepted, the relationship was therefore somewhere between 7 and 10 years in duration.)
In 1997 Veronica was living in Housing Commission accommodation at Lethbridge Park (near her mother's house at Lethbridge park). (She also at that time had a quarter interest in property at Myrtle Creek for which she says she later received a payment of $15,000 from one of her brothers, Reginald). Gregory says that he moved in with Veronica in March 1997 while she was living at Lethbridge Park. Veronica denies this. She says that a "boyfriend and girlfriend type" relationship began with Gregory in early 1997 and that in approximately July/August 1997 Gregory began to stay overnight at her home two to three nights per week, but that Gregory did not reside at the Lethbridge Park home (Margaret's second affidavit is consistent with this). Both Margaret and Veronica say that the couple first began living together in mid 1998 when they moved onto the property at Kurrajong.
There seems to be no dispute, however, that from some time in 1997 there was a relationship between Gregory and Veronica that at least included Gregory regularly staying overnight at her house and little ultimately turns on whether there was a domestic relationship prior to 1998 (the time at which Veronica concedes such a relationship).
In 1997/8, Veronica had three children living with her (from a former relationship) then aged around 12, 10 and 5, respectively, and Gregory had a young child (from his former marriage) who lived with his Gregory's ex-wife but who stayed with Gregory (and Veronica) from time to time.
In February 1998, Gregory and his ex-wife reached a property settlement, as a result of which Gregory received payment of a sum of $40,000 (out of which he paid about $2,000 in legal fees). At that time, he says he had a small amount of cash, a one tonne ute, superannuation entitlements of about $16,000 and about 4 trail (or motor) bikes. He had an obligation to make ongoing monthly support payments (which he said were $100 per month) for his son.
Gregory is a bricklayer by trade and he worked as such (off and on) during his relationship with Veronica. He was employed for a time prior to 2000 by his father and for a time during the period around 2000 by the owner of a pub at North Richmond. Apart from that, he seems to have worked at various places out of Sydney (including Mittagong and Forster) as and when work was available. During part or all of the relationship with Veronica he did not have a fixed regular wage - it being dependent on whether and when he obtained work. It is not disputed that there were times that he had no work and was dependent on Veronica to support his living expenses. Gregory readily conceded in the witness box that Veronica had been a great support to him over the period. It appears that for some of the period he was in receipt of unemployment benefits (such as in 2007, when he said he had no work - T 64).
Veronica was unemployed throughout the whole of the relationship. Her income was derived solely from unemployment and parenting benefits from Centrelink (and was in the order of $580 per week although this varied over a fortnightly period depending on which particular benefit she received each week in that period). She says that she received board from the children once they turned 15 or 16 (though she was unable in the witness box to say when that was - at T 94, she said that she "wouldn't have a clue" when her daughter had turned 15 or 16, though conceding that she knew what year she was born). In her affidavit Veronica said that the "mortgage payments" were made out of the $250 per week board that she had received. (In the witness box she said, instead, that it was an interest only mortgage with no repayments and that the money was just drawn out of account there "automatically every month" - T 90 - and that no one made loan repayments "it just came out of loan money" - T 92.) Gregory, similarly, referred to mortgage repayments but seems to have understood that they were debited directly by the bank.
- What was said about the Kurrajong property
Gregory says that at the commencement of their cohabitation, Veronica told him that she owned a property at Kurrajong ([11], [21], [27] of Gregory's first affidavit). In the witness box he described this conversation as Veronica saying to him "she had some acreage at Kurrajong" (T.60.40/46). (When it was suggested to him that this was unlikely as Veronica was at the time living in Housing Commission property, Gregory commented that "she also owned land at Myrtle Creek there as well" (T 61.37), something not denied by Veronica - indeed Veronica maintains that the sale of her interest in that land for the sum of $15,000 was one of the sources of income for the construction of the shed on the property.)
Gregory says that it was Veronica who said that she wanted move the children out of Sydney and suggested that "we could build on the Kurrajong property and move up there" ([16]) (which is what in fact they did) and that at that time he had no idea that Margaret had any interest in the Kurrajong property. (As Mr Livingstone notes the latter assertion is inconsistent with the later assertion by Gregory's solicitors, when the present dispute arose, that Gregory's belief at all times was that Veronica and her mother jointly owned the property.)
Veronica denies that it was her idea that they move to Kurrajong and says that the idea of building a shed and moving to the property was Gregory's idea ([16] of her affidavit in reply). However, she also said that "It was me or my brother who was going to build on the property" -124.32 - and that "Greg jumped in first", which suggests that she at least had in mind that she might build on the property at some stage (but also suggests that what was involved at that stage was not contemplated to be the transfer of any beneficial interest in the property - it being a question of who in the family might be allowed to build and live there at the time).
Veronica denies that she ever told Gregory that she owned the property. Similarly, Margaret says that in conversations with Gregory she said that she owned the property at Kurrajong and that she also heard Veronica say this to Gregory. (Both women refer to later conversations, during the course of the house construction, in which it is said that Gregory acknowledged or displayed awareness of the fact that Margaret owned the property.) Gregory maintains that he only learnt that Margaret's name was on the title deeds when the couple started to build the house and that he was at that time told by Veronica that Margaret's name was on the deed "to cover for her".
In general I accept Margaret's evidence in this regard. That said, having regard to the conflicting evidence by Veronica and Margaret as to the moneys received on settlement of the sale of the property (Veronica asserting that all she received was $170,000 and that the balance belongs to her mother but in a bank account in Veronica's name so that it does not affect her mother's pension), and the general tenor of Veronica's evidence (to which I will refer later), it seems to me by no means inconceivable that if Gregory had raised the issue of ownership of the property with her, Veronica could well have explained Margaret's name on the title deeds in that way to Gregory. She seems to have regarded (and been allowed to treat) the property as her own in a practical sense. Similarly, it appears that Veronica acted from time to time as if it were her property (at least by the time of the house construction and the later giving of instructions to the real estate agents for the sale of the property). Therefore, it would not be surprising if she had earlier conveyed the impression to Gregory that she had an entitlement to the property.
Nevertheless, there is nothing to suggest that when the property was acquired by Margaret there was any intention on her part to confer a beneficial interest on Veronica or that she had later declared any trust over the property in Veronica's favour. The most likely explanation of the evidence, it seems to me, is that Gregory assumed that Veronica had an interest in the property because she behaved as if she were entitled to it and because they were moving onto and building on it.
- Construction of shed
Towards the end of 1997, construction began of a shed on the Kurrajong property into which Gregory and Veronica moved (with her 3 children) in the first half of 2008. There seems to be no dispute that Gregory was involved in the construction of the shed (which commenced in 2007). However, Veronica says that the shed was built by a number of people (including Gregory) and that, in addition to the shed, stables were built (at a cost funded by her daughter Felicia, who can then have been only about 12, but who apparently provided some funds out of the sale of a motor bike [35]), and by Veronica's ex partner (who she said had provided the beams and structural materials from his workplace at no cost) [36].
Pausing there, Veronica seemed to be at pains throughout her evidence to denigrate and downgrade the role that Gregory had played in the construction of the shed and of the house and to criticise the quality of his work. However, there is a logical inconsistency, it seems to me, in saying (for example) that Gregory was only one of a number of people who built the shed and stables and then seemingly blaming Gregory alone for any shoddy construction work - such as she did in relation to the stables by reference to an incident when the horse cut itself on exposed building materials - T 115.16; T 115.26.)
Gregory says that he spent approximately $40,000 of his money on the construction of the shed ([25]), out of the moneys from his property settlement with his ex-wife (though he does not deny that some materials for the stable were provided by Veronica's ex-partner). He says that out of those settlement moneys he "refunded the sum of $12,000 to Veronica and paid a total of approximately $28,000 for the construction of the shed". (He also says that he gave Veronica a sum of $4,000 to put in a trust account for his son so that he would be in the same position as her children.)
Further, Gregory says that after moving into the shed he built a new fence along the rest of the property (and rural wire fences down both side boundaries with the assistance of neighbours) and built a stable for Felicia's horse. He says that he paid approximately $4,000 for the materials for the fencing and $5,000 for the stables ([29]). He also says that he paid $13,000 for the cost of installation of a large water tank ([35]).
Veronica denies that Gregory contributed any moneys at all towards the construction of the shed. She claims that she had three sources of income which she used for the construction of the shed ([31]) - $12,000 held in a bank account in trust for her children (which is consistent with Gregory's understanding that the three children each had the benefit of a trust fund of $4,000); $20,000 of personal savings; and $15,000 received from her brother Reginald for her share of the Myrtle Creek property.
Of the three sources of income that Veronica says were available to her, there is doubt in relation to when she received the sum of $15,000 said to have been referable to the acquisition of her share in the Myrtle Creek property. The transfer in respect of her share was dated 10 May 2000 (well after the shed was complete). If payment for the transfer was effected at the time of the transfer then she could not have had those funds available to use in the construction of the shed in 1997/8.
In cross-examination, Veronica gave conflicting evidence as to this issue. After asserting adamantly that she had enough funds to complete the shed on her own (T 110.46) and referring to her share of the Lismore property, Veronica accepted (at first) that the sale transaction was effected on the one day (T 11.23); she then said that she had received the sum from her brother Reginald at an earlier time (i.e. before the transfer of her interest ion the property); then she said that when she had referred to the $15,000 she received from Reginald she was referring to the water tanks or fences not the shed (T 112 .47), saying that "The shed classified as septic, everything that is around it, not just specifically one shed" (T 113.7). Finally, Veronica conceded that she did not have the money from sale of that property "when the shed first went up" (T 112.19).
(I interpose to note that no evidence was adduced from Reginald as to the time when money was paid to Veronica for her share in the Myrtle Creek property).
As to the payment out of the children's trust moneys, there is some consistency between the evidence given by both Gregory and Veronica on this issue - in that both say that Veronica was proposing to use the moneys held for her children, but Gregory says that he refunded those out of his property settlement moneys.
At T 62.4, Gregory said that to "start the shed" there was $4,000 to be put out of each of Veronica's three children's trust accounts and $4,000 that was to go into his son's account was also used for the shed; but he also said that he had given Veronica $16,000 out of the moneys from his settlement to go into each of the four trust accounts (though there is no reference to that in his affidavit). The evidence in this respect was confusing but it would seem that what was contended by Gregory (as is set out in the conversation to which he deposes at [19]) was that Veronica had agreed to use moneys for the construction of the shed at the outset out of her children's funds and that he was then to pay her back for those moneys out of his property settlement - and that this was the $12,000 of the funds from his property settlement by which he said her had refunded those amounts ([25]). Needless to say, that is denied by Veronica.
Veronica says that of his property settlement, Gregory paid her $10,000 to repay her a loan for the purchase of a Holden ute (the acquisition of which Gregory says came later than the settlement and was a loan that he says he repaid with moneys handed over from his wages) and she also claims that he paid some $24,000 for a motor bike. Gregory does not deny that he bought a motor bike after the property settlement (though he says it was at a much lower cost - around $8,000 or $9,000, and not the $20,000 that was put to him in cross-examination) (T 38).
If, as Gregory says, the sum of $12,000 (advanced out of Veronica's children's accounts) was repaid by money he provided out of his property settlement, then taking into account the legal fees of around $2,000, that would have left no more than $26,000 available for contribution to the shed construction costs (of which it seems to be conceded that some $8-9,000 was spent on a motor bike at least). (That would be consistent with a payment of around $9,000 on the fencing and other materials but leaves unclear from where the funds for the water tank were derived - assuming all these amounts were paid at around the time of construction of the shed. Alternatively, it would be consistent with payment of the costs of the water tank but would leave unclear how Gregory could have funded the fencing and stable materials, at least without another source of income.)
No invoices were produced in relation to the amounts said by each to have been expended on the shed. Gregory did receive a net sum of about $38,000 out of his property settlement of which it is feasible that he could have expended around $30,000 on construction of the shed and items such as the water tank (assuming the motor bike was in the order of $8,000) (and would be consistent with his assertion that he repaid the amount of $12,000 funded through Veronica's children's trust funds), though that amount would not have covered the total amount that he says was spent by him in connection with the shed, stables and fencing.
Apart from the amount he received from his property settlement, Gregory's ability to fund payments of the kind that he says he made towards the shed seems to have been limited. Mr Livingstone pointed to Gregory's tax returns for the 1998 and 1999 years to show that his income was limited and would not have permitted contributions of the kind that Gregory said had been made. (For the year ended June 1998, during which year he said he had broken his leg and was unable to work as much, Gregory's total taxable income was $15,822; in 1999 it was $26,211.)
In that regard, there was a suggestion that Gregory may not have disclosed all of his income over the period (he said in answer to questions as to his taxable income for those years that there may have been cash jobs). Gregory referred to "cashies" as payments received in cash and agreed that they were not recorded in his work diaries (T 29.35). His evidence in the witness box suggested that he might not have regarded those as income he was required to declare. At T 27.19/25, Gregory said that the wages "would all be on there" but some money was not on the books and he seemed to suggest that moneys paid in cash might not have had to be declared.
However, to the extent that his filed tax returns should be taken to reflect what his income was for the period, this does not reveal a ready source for payment in respect of the construction of the shed and Gregory conceded (at T 28.29) that there was not a lot of money left out of his wages after child support, petrol, cigarettes and the cost of living.
Veronica sets out at [32] of her first affidavit the amounts she asserts were paid from her own moneys in relation to the construction of the shed (including for that purpose amounts that she says were referable to the water tank and fence). According to Veronica (and leaving aside the cost of materials for completion of walls and floors, which she did not attempt to quantify), she expended a total of some $45,000 on the shed, fencing and water tank. If those estimates are reliable (and I treat them as no more than assertions given the lack of any documentary evidence and the general tenor of Veronica's evidence) then even if Gregory had paid the whole of the net funds from his property settlement to Veronica (and deducting an amount for the motor bike), there would be a balance of some $15,000 that Veronica must have funded (out of her children's trust funds and/or whatever other funds were available to her - but not out of the moneys from Myrtle Creek, which she accepted she did not have at that stage).
For the reasons that I outline later in this judgment, I consider that the evidence of both Veronica and Gregory in relation to financial matters needs to be treated with scepticism. I consider that the evidence establishes that Gregory must have contributed at least $15,000 and potentially up to $30,000 out of his property settlement moneys to the construction of the shed.
- Relationship at Kurrajong
There is no dispute that after the shed was built the couple lived in the shed on the Kurrajong property with Veronica's children from about 1998. There also seems to be no dispute that the relationship was a volatile one (to use a relatively neutral, and probably charitable, term). It was described as an "off and on" relationship (by Margaret, who deposes to periods during which Gregory lived at other locations - for up to approximately 9 months on one occasion) ([12]-[14]); or a "hot and cold" relationship, as conceded by Gregory himself (T 65.47). Felicia (who admittedly was not favourably disposed to Gregory and says she was forced to like him and regarded him as the enemy for most of the time of the relationship with her mother - see T 129.28; T 129 37) said that "it was always off and on that he was living at Kurrajong".
Veronica more than once described it as an abusive relationship (see T 110.13; T 117.48) and said that the whole thing was a nightmare (T 119.14) and there was evidence from both Margaret and Felicia as to their observations of physical violence during that time. Veronica recounted in her affidavit various incidents of physical and verbal abuse (in the main denied by Gregory, although he did not deny that he had used offensive language to Veronica and he accepted that on one occasion he had injured Veronica's finger and she had required hospitalisation for the injury). Gregory's work diaries (to which he knew Veronica had access from time to time, though he suggested that this was a breach of his privacy) certainly contain offensive language (and hence it is not unlikely that Gregory used such language in the home) and, on occasion, crude messages (leading to the submission by Mr Livingstone that they were intended to harass or intimidate Veronica - although it is not clear whether she was in fact intimidated by the contents of the diaries). Gregory denied that when he wrote notes in his diary he intended to threaten Veronica (T 66.21) and said that his diary was his "own thoughts" and for him. He agreed that Veronica had written in them and had access to them but denied addressing comments in his diary to her and maintained that he did not even think about whether she would read it (T 67). In this regard, many of the notes seem to be admonitions to himself and it may well be that the notes written that were abusive of Veronica were not directed at her (although I was taken to a particularly crude drawing that is hard to read otherwise than as directed to her).
Gregory accepted in the witness box that he had "probably" used bad language (T 37.15) "during some fighting, some had times" and accepted that his diary contained such language (describing the relationship as 'pretty hectic' throughout the period - T 64.48).
On 8 January 2003, while the couple were still living in the shed, Veronica obtained an apprehended violence order against Gregory (that order being revoked on 25 June 2003), which in its terms prohibited entry by Gregory onto the Kurrajong premises. Gregory says that when that order was made, he lived for a time at a friend's place (though he was vague as to whether this was for a week or a month) and then moved back in with Veronica with her consent. (According to Gregory's evidence in the witness box, the order was amended on Veronica's application after 6 months. His evidence was vague as to when he actually moved back to the property). Veronica seemed to accept that the AVO had been amended with her consent "because things changed" (saying that the 3 months after that was the only period that the couple had "got on").
- Decision to build on the property
During 2002, it seems that there was discussion as to the building of a house on the property. Veronica's evidence in this respect was difficult to accept. She maintained in the witness box that the project was Gregory's idea "and solely his" (T 91.25) (which seems inconsistent with her mother's evidence) and one with which she reluctantly went along (T 107) and denied having any interest in the project.
At T 106.49, she said that "Greg wanted to build the house to keep the cost down, not me Greg wanted to build the house", and that she was quite happy living in the shed (T 107). She said (at T 107) "He is the one who wanted to build the house. He is the one who promised everyone the world, and he is the one who did not deliver". (Somewhat inconsistently, she also said "I was going to go ahead and build a house regardless if he was in my life or not" (T 91.31).) At T 110.7, Veronica said "I wasn't interested (in the house)) in the beginning and I probably wasn't really - I didn't have a choice. I was told that I had to help and that was every day he was there I had to be there".
Veronica was reluctant to accept that there was any intention for the home to be built for their joint future but did not deny it outright: asked whether they had moved to Kurrajong and started living in the shed with a view to a long term relationship, her answer was "not really" (T 91.13); asked if she understood Gregory was building the house for the future they were planning (T 92.6) she again said "not really" and added "He just lied all the time" (T 92.12); asked if it was the idea that all of them would live in the house, she conceded "Oh if it did get to that yeah" (T 110.16); but then said "it didn't last long - I wouldn't really say he stayed in the house too long" (T 110.22) (something inconsistent with the suggestion that he did not move into the house at all and only lived in the shed).
Even if it be the case that it was Gregory's idea to build the house, it seems highly unlikely that Gregory would have taken on such a project if all he thought was that he would obtain more than the benefit of temporary (and rent-free) occupation in the property (which is what Veronica suggested at T 107.11). Furthermore, if accepted, Veronica's evidence that the construction of the house was all Gregory's idea and that she only reluctantly fell in with his wishes would seem to me to support the conclusion that Veronica understood that Gregory was to obtain some benefit out of the construction of the house (not simply that this was something to occupy his time or to provide temporary accommodation for him - since the former makes no economic sense and the latter ignores the fact that Gregory already had temporary accommodation in the shed). I have come to the conclusion that Veronica's evidence on this issue was an example of her insistence on down-playing the relationship and Gregory's role in it.
Gregory says, variously, that it was when they were building the shed (T 50.4) and then that it was when the couple were discussing the construction of the house in about 2002 or starting to build the house (T 49.39) that he first learnt that Margaret's name was on the title deed. He says that Veronica told him this and that she said it was "to cover for me", explaining that she would need to get her mother to sign the mortgage documents ([33]). Veronica denies this conversation. (The reason that it might have been to cover for Veronica was not explored, although perhaps there would have been an issue as to her CentreLink benefits if she had owned an interest in the property.) Gregory also says that Veronica told him she had looked into transferring half of the property into his name but that it would cost about $30,000 for the stamp duty and they agreed that this was too much ([34]). Veronica denies the conversation in [33] but, perhaps tellingly, does not respond directly to the conversation in [34].
Both Veronica and Margaret recount conversations in which they say Gregory complained (during the course of the construction of the house) that he was doing all the work and the property was not even his. Gregory denies this, but in any event, it would be consistent with Gregory's evidence that he was told at some stage that the title deeds were in Margaret's name and that he regarded this as inconsistent with the arrangement in relation to the house. Gregory, however, maintains that he understood that Veronica had a beneficial interest in the house and he asserted that "I thought she [Margaret] had her name on the deeds, I believed v owned it and the mothers name was on the deeds" (T 50.13). At least by the time that preparation for construction commenced, however, he knew that Margaret's name was on the deed (T 51.42).
- Finance for construction of house
Finance was obtained from the NAB in late 2002 for the purpose of construction of the house on the property. (Veronica made the loan application, falsely stating that she was employed at the time. When first questioned as to this, Veronica somewhat disingenuously suggested that she had not herself misinformed the bank but, rather, her accountant had. However, she did ultimately concede that she had knowingly signed a document containing the dishonest statement that she was in paid employment with EZI Grow Hydroponics, Mr Druitt (T 97.34) in order to obtain a financial advantage for herself (T 98.26).
The loan was via a flexiplus loan facility secured by a first registered mortgage over the property. The facility operated such that the principal was not repayable during the term of the facility and interest was charged on a monthly basis and debited to the loan account (presumably up to the maximum level of the facility). Withdrawals from and payments into the loan account were permitted and operated either to increase or reduce the interest payable on the outstanding loan account balance. Relevantly, it seems that the living expenses for the household were also met from this loan account (into which Veronica's CentreLink benefits were paid) as well as the construction costs. (In 2007 and 2008, overseas holiday expenses for Veronica and members of her family were met out of the loan account.) Veronica conceded that it was used as a bank account.
Gregory says ([25]) that he made mortgage payments during the course of his cohabitation with Veronica, by giving most of his wages to Veronica each pay packet ([27]) (though he also accepted in cross-examination that there were not mortgage repayments as such). He says that during the course of the relationship, he worked as a bricklayer and earned approximately $1,500 per week of which he says he gave about $1,000 per week to Veronica (which he says she used to pay for building materials for the house and repay the line of credit obtained from the NAB to construct the house). In cross-examination he was somewhat vague as to what had occurred in that regard and as to his earnings over the period.
Having regard to the work diaries he kept over the period (in which he regularly records having no work but in which on other occasions he records amounts paid for wages and the like - including at least one entry where he notes that he was paid $1,800) it seems implausible that he received a regular wage that permitted him to pay $1,000 per week to Veronica (and the loan account statements do not record a regular deposit of such an amount). That said, the bank account do record cash deposits from time to time of amounts that do not seem to be referable to the CentreLink payments, which would support the inference that Gregory was providing Veronica with cash out of his wages at least from time to time (contrary to her denial to that effect). (This seems to me to put into context his concession at T 46.17 that all his expenses - bike, petrol, clothes, food, cigarettes, beer and marijuana - were met for him over a 10 year period; and that he did not do the grocery shopping (T 47) and that Veronica would sometimes buy clothing for him (T 46.44). To the extent that those payments came out of funds from the bank account, it seems to me likely that they came out of pooled funds albeit that Veronica's income was more regular and may have been more than his over the period - although no exercise was carried out to determine that).
- Construction of house
The construction of the house was as 'owner/builder' and it is not disputed that Margaret completed a TAFE course in June 2003, as required for the purposes of such certification. There is a dispute as to whether, as Gregory says, it was put to him that one or other of Margaret or Veronica had to do the course and the suggestion that Veronica did not do so because she was 'probably' required at home that day.
Veronica accepted that Gregory "took control of the work", she says that this was something that she "just went along with" (T 107) and that he had liaised with the Council at first but that this changed after the house was complete (though quickly adding that it was "not actually complete because it was never complete").
The building documents tendered by Gregory show that he was recorded on a number of the documents as the owner or builder, together with references to Veronica as owner, suggesting that the couple were not careful to specify accurately the position in that regard. (Exhibit 10 is a bundle of documents including a building inspection request dated 8 September 2003 showing the owner as 'Austin' but the builder as G Hornby; a second certificate of compliance describing the clients as Mr and Mrs Hornby; a residential construction specification in the name of G and V Hornby of 6 January 2003; an Avcot Engineering Services Agreement with G and V Hornby; and a certificate of compliance dated 18 September 2003 describing G Hornby as the builder.) This is consistent with the project being treated as a joint project (as are Veronica's own entries in Gregory's diaries during 2003).
Construction of the house began during 2003. Gregory described the works that he says he co-ordinated during the construction process (at [39] of his affidavit and in considerably more detail in his oral evidence). It is common ground that Gregory did physically carry out some building works on both the shed and the house (though Veronica was at pains to stress that she was assisting him throughout and that others were involved) and there is a dispute as to the extent (and value) of those works.
Veronica grudgingly agreed Gregory took charge of the construction (T 128.9) and "sometimes" was involved in the construction "when he would get off his benders he would go to work and then I would not see him for a week" (T 128). She asserted that the work was of "benefit for himself because he was the one who wanted the house" (T 128.22) and maintained that "No it was actually a headache to me something that I didn't want to go on lived on promises had no choice but to go ahead with the house" (T 128.25).
Veronica consistently down-played the involvement of Gregory in the construction of the house, maintained that he had done much less than he said he had done, emphasised her own involvement in the construction of the house (and was critical of the quality of the work that he had carried out - describing most of it as 'poorly done' or very poorly done, including by reference to the cheap tiles that she said had been used). She did not refer in her affidavit to some of the work that she conceded Gregory had performed such as his use of a backhoe to excavate trenches (which she described as "Got on it all the time to destroy the property" T 113.49) because she said that her affidavit "didn't go into the nitty gritty" and it "wasn't my department" - T 114.12. I can only describe her attitude in the witness box in this regard as truculent, grudging and unco-operative.
So, for example, of the tiling that she concedes Gregory carried out ("with assistance from me") T 114.23, she said that she did not mention this in her affidavit because "that's house things not women things its men things" and then said was a "very poorly job" (T 114.36). She would not concede that the bricklaying (in which she said they had all assisted) was an important contribution ("No because he done a very poor job. All things were out of line, depreciated the value of the house because they were cheap tiles" - T 114.46; then, when it was pointed out that on her case she had paid for the tiles, she said the reason that the tiling depreciated the property was because they were not laid properly they were all over the place T 115.7 and again that they were "not the best of tiles", "when people would throw things on it and smash them no not the best of tiles" - T 115.11). Veronica gave varying estimates of the bricks laid by Gregory (70% or 80%) but says "I was there, every brick" (T 91.42/.48) (her assistance not being disputed by Gregory). Asked about work on the fence she said "Not all of it" T 99.5.
At T 98.38, Veronica claimed "I done more work than he ever done"; at T 98.45 "He did a lot less work than he is claiming that he has done".
In response to the suggestion that she considered that every piece of work carried out by Gregory had been done poorly, Veronica said "it had to get fixed up a lot of things had to be fixed up" (T 115.26).
As to Gregory's evidence of the work carried out by him, while vague in much of the rest of his evidence, he became most animated when describing the tasks that he had performed or organised others to perform in relation to the works (presumably because this was an area of evidence closer to matters of which he was familiar and felt comfortable discussing). He did not deny that Veronica (and others) had assisted him and I did not form the impression that he was overstating the work that he personally had done. I accept that in general terms his evidence as to the steps taken by him and others in the construction process was credible and where there is a conflict between his evidence and that of Veronica as to the work that was done and by whom I would accept Gregory's evidence as the more reliable.
- Cost of construction
Veronica denies that Gregory contributed any of his own money to the construction of the house. Certainly, as Mr Livingstone developed in cross-examination of Gregory, his financial ability to contribute to the costs of the materials for the construction works (having regard to his inconsistent work history and tax returns) was limited. It is submitted (and I accept) that Gregory's overall circumstances were such that he did not have significant funds (whether by way of capital or income) to invest in the Kurrajong property (having regard to the spasmodic nature of his earnings and his ongoing legal obligation to provide support for his child under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) and the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth)).
Gregory's tax returns certainly do not reveal a large income sufficient to meet construction costs in the vicinity of somewhere in the order of $330,000 over the period in which the main construction work was carried out. He was employed for a time from about 1996 in his father's electrical contracting business and paid (variously by cash or cheque) depending on the amount of work he had done from week to week. He says that out of his pay he gave his mother money for his child support payments (to pay his ex-wife). Mr Livingstone placed some weight on the fact that there was no evidence adduced by Gregory's mother (as to the alleged payments to Gregory or as to where Gregory was living in 2007/2009 (the disputed period)). There was evidence, however, from his father Mr William Hornby that supported in general terms his employment of Gregory for some part of the period in which Gregory was in the relationship with Veronica (although he no longer retained records in relation to the wage payments) and, relevantly in light of the criticism that Gregory's mother was not called to give evidence, William was not cross-examined as to where Gregory was living at the particular time.
It seems fair to say that Gregory's employment over the period from 1998 to 2009 was of a sporadic nature (whether due to injury, as seems to have been the case in 1998, or because of a lack of available work). There was a suggestion in the course of cross-examination that Gregory had been prepared to take unemployment benefits while fit and working on the construction of the house. However, Gregory's explanation seemed to be that there was not available work in the whole of the period. I was taken to various diary entries by Gregory that suggested that, over the course of his relationship with Veronica, there were indeed periods in which he had no or little work. However, given that Gregory seems to have been prepared to travel out of Sydney in order to obtain work (and to stay in a van or other temporary accommodation to do so) I do not conclude that he was unemployed from time to time because of any general disinclination to work.
As noted earlier, Veronica was unemployed for the whole of the period. There is no evidence as to any attempt by her to gain employment in the period. She was in receipt of welfare benefits (a maximum of $580 per week) that do not seem to account for all the cash deposits into her bank account (which suggests that Gregory did provide her with income from time to time, as he says he did).
Veronica's explanation for the various cash deposits (in amounts varying over the period February 2003 to January 2006 from as low as $300 to as much as $4,800, leaving aside a deposit described as "Cash and/or Cheques Deposit of $14,763.85 in February 2004) was that those were (on every occasion) payments back into the account of moneys that she had previously withdrawn to pay workmen (and then re-deposited when the need to pay those workmen did not arise). (She said in relation to one such entry "That was money that I would have taken out of the bank to pay for things, didn't use the money and put it back into the bank" (T 101.11) and then "Well during the period I've taken money out to pay for things. If people didn't show up or nothing got paid, the money got put back into the bank" (T 101.24). That may well have been the case on some occasions but it seems unlikely to account for the regularity of such cash deposits into the account. Her evidence was frankly implausible on this issue and seemed to have been an attempt to avoid the conclusion that Gregory had in fact given her moneys over the period for contribution to household expenses or the like.
I was left to conclude that both the parties were less than upfront as to financial matters - it seems to me quite possible that there was a non-disclosure in Gregory's tax returns of at least some of the cash income he received over the period (if, indeed, his contribution to the relationship was as he said it was); by the same token Veronica herself was not averse to presenting an inaccurate financial picture if that would be of benefit to her or her family (insofar as she signed a false statement as to her income when applying for the NAB loan and she seems to have been unconcerned at the suggestion that moneys might be placed in an account in her name in order, on her version of events, to present a misleading picture in relation to her mother's pension).
It seems to me likely that Veronica's denial of any contribution whatsoever to financial expenses by Gregory over the period is consistent with her desire to minimise the contribution made by Gregory in other ways and I treat it with scepticism accordingly. Veronica's explanation as to the bank cash deposits (as noted above) lacked credibility in my view. In the absence of evidence that Gregory maintained a separate bank account during the period (and given that of the two of them Veronica seems to have been the one to have assumed the responsibility for attending to the household expenses - grocery shopping and the like - as well as for making the payments to the tradesmen and at least supervising, if not attending to, the lodgement of documents with the Council, having regard to her entries in Gregory's diary), the suggestion that Gregory gave Veronica some or most of whatever wages he received (less money for cigarettes or 'beer money') over the period seems to me to be more credible than that Veronica was the sole financial support for the household throughout the whole of the period of what she said was an abusive relationship (with only one three-month period in which they got on). That said, it does not seem likely that Gregory made either a regular or a particularly large financial contribution to the costs of construction of the house (the bulk of which seem to have been funded through the NAB facility).
Balancing the above factors, I take into account that Veronica's contribution to the relationship at the outset (in terms of bringing to the relationship the ability to occupy the property rent free) was greater than Gregory's (though their respective assets at the commencement of the relationship were otherwise equal). I accept that her day-to-day financial contributions seem to have outweighed Gregory's (although he did contribute from time to time) and she had the bulk of the responsibility for running the household (made harder by Gregory's behaviour). Nevertheless, I consider that Gregory's contribution to the building of the shed and house was a significant contribution.
Having regard to the orders to be made on (i) above, I consider that there is no adjustment to the parties' property interests now warranted. Had the decision in (i) been otherwise, I would have adjusted the parties' property interests by an order in Gregory's favour of $60,000.
(iii) Costs
At the outset of the hearing, in written submissions it was contended by Mr Livingstone that costs should follow the event save that in the event that Gregory obtained modest relief against Veronica he would not be entitled to costs if the proceedings ought to have been commenced in the Local Court (relying upon Harris v Schembri (1995) DFC 95-166; Vollmer v Hauber Davidson [2006] NSWCA 79) and that his claim for interest should be refused given that the delay in commencing the proceedings was as a result of his own error as to the law. It was further submitted that Gregory should pay the costs of the application for leave regardless of the outcome of the proceedings. However, at the close of the hearing both Counsel sought to defer submissions on costs until after the judgment.
I will therefore hear submissions as to costs at a convenient time to Counsel.
Orders
I therefore make the following orders:
1. I order that the second cross-defendant do all such things and sign such documents as may be necessary to cause Rafton Family Lawyers to pay to the cross-claimant within 7 days the sum of $100,000 (plus any interest accrued thereon from the date of payment of that amount into the said trust account).
2. I direct that the solicitor for the second cross-defendant, on payment of the amount referred to in order 1 above to the cross-claimant, be permitted to release to the second cross-defendant the balance of the funds held in the trust account of Rafton Family Lawyers out of the proceeds of sale of the second cross-defendant's Kurrajong property.
**********
Decision last updated: 08 September 2011
18