Dries v Ryan - [2000] NSWSC 1163

CITATION: Dries v Ryan [2000] NSWSC 1163

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2754/99

HEARING DATE(S): 29 May, 17-18 August 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 12 December 2000

PARTIES :

Joanne Maree Dries (Plaintiff)
Gregory James Ryan (Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Master McLaughlin

COUNSEL : P. Dowdy (Plaintiff)
M. Errington (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Cassidy Gibson Howlin Solicitors (Plaintiff)
Bayside Solicitors (Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Family Law - Alleged de facto relationship - Parties never resided together - Interests in property - Purchase of a house property as co-owners in unequal shares - Respective contributions to purchase price - Whether provisions of Contracts Review Act are attracted - Contract not in evidence - Whether proceedings are properly constituted - Whether circumstances of acquisition of property give rise to a constructive trust under the general law - Defendant has remained in occupation of property - Claim by Plaintiff for occupation fee - Such a claim not available unless Plainitff has been ousted or excluded - Trust in respect to shareholding of Plaintiff in Defendant's company.

LEGISLATION CITED: Property (Relationships) Act 1984
Contracts Review Act 1980
Real Property Act 1900

CASES CITED: Toscano v Holland Securities Pty Limited (1985) 1 NSWLR 145
Baltic Shipping v Dillon (1991) 22 NSWLR 20
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242
Biviano v Natoli (1998) 43 NSWLR 695

DECISION: See paragraph 52

SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
MASTER McLAUGHLIN
Tuesday, 12 December, 2000
2754/99 JOANNE MAREE DRIES -v- GREGORY JAMES RYAN
JUDGMENT
1 MASTER: By statement of claim filed on 17 June 1999 the Plaintiff, Joanne Maree Dries, claims against the Defendant, Gregory James Ryan, firstly, relief pursuant to section 20 of the De Facto Relationships Act 1984 (now the Property (Relationships) Act 1984); secondly, relief under the general law, based upon the principles relating to constructive trusts; and finally, relief under the Contracts Review Act 1980. Each of the foregoing items of relief relates to a house property situate at and known as 255 Sylvania Road, Gymea. (The relief by way of rectification of the contract for the purchase of the house property, originally sought by the statement of claim, was not pursued at the hearing.) 2 At the commencement of the hearing it was noted that it was agreed between the parties that the present value of the aforementioned house property (to which I shall refer as “the Gymea property”) was $435,000. 3 Subsequently, the Defendant (by cross-claim filed on 30 July 1999) sought relief in respect to the interest of the Plaintiff in the company, Ryan Air Conditioning Pty Limited. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are the sole directors and the sole shareholders of that company, which is the vehicle through which the Defendant conducts his air-conditioning business. 4 On 26 May 2000 Justice Bryson ordered that the whole of the proceedings be referred to a Master for hearing and determination. 5 By her statement of claim the plaintiff asserted (in paragraph 3) that from late…

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 Dries v Ryan

Details

AGLC: Dries v Ryan [2000] NSWSC 1163
Case: [2000] NSWSC 1163
Decision Date: 12 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dries v Ryan was a case heard by the Family Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Dries, alleged a de facto relationship with the defendant, Ryan, despite the two never having resided together. The crux of the dispute centred on interests in a property, specifically a house, which they had purchased as co-owners in unequal shares. The issues revolved around the respective contributions to the purchase price and the legal implications of their arrangement, including whether the Contracts Review Act applied and if the proceedings were properly constituted. Additionally, the case examined whether the circumstances of the property acquisition gave rise to a constructive trust under the general law.

The court was tasked with determining whether the unequal ownership of the property constituted a partnership, and if so, whether the Contracts Review Act applied to their agreement. Given that the contract itself was not in evidence, the court had to ascertain the nature of their arrangement. A significant part of the deliberation was whether the plaintiff was entitled to claim occupation fees, which requires the plaintiff to have been ousted or excluded from the property. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiff held a beneficial interest in the shares of a company owned by the defendant, and if a constructive trust was applicable under the general law.

The court found that the relationship between Dries and Ryan did not constitute a de facto relationship as they had never lived together, and therefore the legal protections afforded to such relationships did not apply. The court determined that the unequal ownership of the property did not necessarily imply a partnership and concluded that the Contracts Review Act was not engaged. The court also ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to occupation fees as they had not been ousted or excluded from the property. Regarding the shares in the defendant's company, the court found that the plaintiff did not hold a beneficial interest and thus no constructive trust arose under the general law.

The court ordered that the property interests be resolved according to the respective contributions made by Dries and Ryan towards the purchase price. The claim for occupation fees was dismissed, and no beneficial interest was found in the shares of the defendant's company. The court provided clear directions for the division of property and clarified the legal standing of both parties in relation to the property and company shares.

Orders