Hardman v Hobman - [2002] QSC 112

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Hardman v. Hobman [2002] QSC 112

PARTIES: DAVID JOHN HARDMAN
(Plaintiff)
v
LEVINA RHODA HOBMAN
(Defendant)

FILE NO: Mackay 93 of 2001

DIVISION: Trial Division

DELIVERED ON: 25 March 2002

DELIVERED AT: Rockhampton

HEARING DATES: 16, 17 October, 17 and 18 December 2001

JUDGE: Dutney J

ORDERS:That after payment to the plaintiff of the sum of $16,000 the balance of the money held in the trust account of Jenny Hamilton & Associates on behalf of the parties jointly be paid to the solicitors for the defendant.
That the caveats lodged by the plaintiff over the land described as Lots 22 and 23 on RP748731 in the county of Nares parish of Johnstone and being the whole of the land contained in certificates of title Volume N1413 folio 69 and N1413 folio 70 be removed.

Costs reserved. In the event no written submissions concerning costs are received by 4pm on 2 April 2001 there will be no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS: TRUSTS – Constructive trusts – De facto relationship – Nature and extent of relationship – Wh an intention by the parties that their property interests remain separate is necessarily a bar to the imputation of a trust – Wh non-financial contribution to subdivision of land with a consequent enhancement of land value entitles former de facto to an interest in the land or of the profits.
Turner v. Dunne [1996] Q.C.A. 272 – FAA
Hibberson v George (1989) 12 Fam LR 725 - CON
Green v Green (1989) 17 NSWLR 343 – CON

COUNSEL: Mr A C Wrenn for the Plaintiff
Ms M. Pagani for the Defendant

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff self represented
Jenny Hamilton & Associates for the Defendant

DUTNEY J: The plaintiff and the defendant were at one time involved in a de facto relationship as a consequence of which the plaintiff claims an interest in the property, the acquisition or retention of which he says he contributed to during the course of that relationship.

The nature and extent of the relationship is in dispute between the parties. The plaintiff alleges that the couple lived in a de facto relationship from December 1984 until September 1993. He further alleges that subject to separations bought about by work circumstances throughout the relationship he and the defendant resided together as if man and wife and agreed, or it was their common intention, that they would devote their respective earnings to the recurrent and day to day expenses of the joint household. The plaintiff further alleges that it was their common intention to invest in and accumulate assets for the enjoyment use and benefit of both the parties. In contrast, the defendant, while admitting she enjoyed a sexual relationship with the plaintiff during the period he alleges, says that they lived together full time only for a period of about 18 months from 1988 until 1989. She further says that any pooling of resources was conditional on the parties marrying. As the plaintiff was not prepared…

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 Hardman v Hobman

Details

AGLC: Hardman v Hobman [2002] QSC 112
Case: [2002] QSC 112
Decision Date: 25 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hardman v. Hobman involved a dispute between David John Hardman (the plaintiff) and Levina Rhoda Hobman (the defendant) regarding property interests that arose out of their de facto relationship. The relationship, which the plaintiff claimed lasted from December 1984 until September 1993, was central to the dispute. The plaintiff sought a claim for an interest in the property, particularly in a parcel of land at Germantown Road, Mena Creek, which was initially owned by the defendant and her former husband. The defendant admitted to the relationship but argued that any pooling of resources was conditional on marriage, which the plaintiff was not prepared to undertake. As a result, she claimed that their assets remained separate.

The legal issues at the core of this case were the nature and extent of the de facto relationship, the applicability of a constructive trust in this context, and the recognition of non-financial contributions made by the plaintiff. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's contributions warranted an interest in the property, specifically the Mena Creek land, or the proceeds from the sale of the Adina Street property. The court also had to consider the defendant's counterclaim for a declaration of her rights in relation to the trust account and other properties.

The court found that while the relationship did exist, the plaintiff's contributions, though significant in terms of non-financial input, were outweighed by his extended period of exclusive occupation of the Mena Creek property without financial contribution. The court concluded that the plaintiff's contributions to the property were adequately represented by his interest in the funds in trust from the sale of the Adina Street property. Consequently, the plaintiff was awarded no interest in the remaining Mena Creek land. However, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to some interest in the profits made from the subdivision of the Mena Creek property. After considering various factors, including the plaintiff's contributions and the benefits he had already derived, the court proposed to award the plaintiff $16,000 from the trust account. The court also ordered the removal of the caveats lodged by the plaintiff over the specified Mena Creek land and reserved the question of costs for further submissions.

Orders