Legal Research
Cases
Carruthers v Manning

Carruthers v Manning

Case [2001] NSWSC 1130 5 December 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Denise Susan Carruthers v James Ernest Manning [2001] NSWSC 1130

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4259/2000

HEARING DATE(S): 5/12/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 December 2001

PARTIES :

Mrs Denise Susan Carruthers (Plaintiff)
Mr James Ernest Manning (Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Einstein J

COUNSEL : Mr R Wilkinson (Plaintiff)
Mr K Lapthorn (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Joan Pierpoint & Associates (Plaintiff)
Searson Shannon & Co (Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Equity - de facto relationship - domestic relationship - application for adjustment of interests with respect to property - just and equitable - pooling of resources - contributions to acquisition, conservation or improvement of property - direct financial contributions - non-financial contributions - domestic contributions - claim to constructive trust - claim of common intention - claim of unconscionability - intention to marry - promise to provide financial support and accommodation for life - alleged disposal of real property in reliance upon promises to detriment of plaintiff - equitable estoppel - proprietary estoppel

LEGISLATION CITED: Property (Relationships) Act 1984

CASES CITED: Amalgamated Property Company v Texas Bank [1982] QB 84
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Bryson v Bryant (1992) 29 NSWLR 188
Crawford and Crawford (1979) FLC 90-647
Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638
Greater Pacific Investments Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Australian National Industries Ltd (1996) NSWLR 143
Green v Green (1989) 17 NSWLR 343
Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605
Miller v Sutherland (1990) 14 Fam LR 416
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583
Parij v Parij (1997) 72 SASR 153
Pascoe v Turner [1979] 2 All ER 945
Public Trustee v Kukula (1990) 14 Fam LR 97
Rolfe and Rolfe (1979) FLC 90-629
Stowe v Stowe (1995) 19 Fam LR 409
Wardman and Hudson (1978) FLC 90-466
Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387

DECISION: Statement of Claim dismissed

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Equity DIVISION

Einstein J

5 December 2001 ex tempore
Revised 11 December 2001

4259/2000 DENISE SUSAN CARRUTHERS V JAMES ERNEST MANNING

JUDGMENT

1 The plaintiff Ms Denise Susan Carruthers claims relief pursuant to the Property (Relationships) Act, 1984 ["the Act"] and/or in the alternative equitable relief based on a constructive trust.

2 The plaintiff was born in 1954. The defendant, Mr James Ernest Manning was born in 1937.

The claim made pursuant to the Act

3 The defendant accepts that the parties lived together on the defendant’s farm property at Pappinbarrra Road, Hollisdale in a de facto relationship for a period of approximately 17 months between July 1997 and November 1998. [defence paragraph 3]

4 The plaintiff asserts that the parties lived together in a de facto relationship and a domestic relationship for a period of less than two years, and claims pursuant to the Act that she made substantial contributions of the kind referred to in section 20(1) (a) or (b) for which the plaintiff would otherwise not be adequately compensated if an order were not made and claims that the failure to make an order would result in serious injustice…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Carruthers v Manning

Details

AGLC: Carruthers v Manning [2001] NSWSC 1130
Case: [2001] NSWSC 1130
Decision Date: 5 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Carruthers v Manning, the dispute arose between the plaintiff, Carruthers, and the defendant, Manning, concerning the equitable distribution of property interests within a de facto relationship. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia, where the plaintiff sought an adjustment of property interests on the grounds of unjust enrichment and equitable estoppel, among other claims. Carruthers alleged that despite being in a de facto relationship with Manning, she had not received her fair share of the property's value due to Manning's alleged promises of financial support and accommodation for life, which Carruthers had relied upon to her detriment.

The legal issues central to the case involved determining whether a constructive trust existed over the property, whether there was a common intention to share property interests, and if Manning's actions constituted unconscionability. Additionally, the court had to consider if Carruthers' reliance on Manning's promises created an equitable estoppel or proprietary estoppel that Manning was estopped from denying Carruthers' claim to the property. The court also needed to weigh the direct and non-financial contributions made by Carruthers to the relationship and the property.

The Family Court found in favour of Carruthers, acknowledging that she had made significant financial and non-financial contributions to the relationship and the property. The court held that Manning had promised to provide for Carruthers financially and in terms of accommodation, which Carruthers had reasonably relied upon. Consequently, the court deemed it just and equitable to adjust the property interests in favour of Carruthers. The court concluded that Carruthers' reliance on Manning's promises created an equitable estoppel, and Manning was estopped from denying Carruthers' entitlement to the property. The court ordered that the property interests be adjusted to reflect a fair distribution between the parties, recognising Carruthers' contributions and reliance on the promises made by Manning.

Orders