Legal Research
Cases
Koprivnjak v Koprivnjak

Koprivnjak v Koprivnjak

Link copied

Case Copied 16 May 2022 46 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Koprivnjak v Koprivnjak [2022] NSWSC 586
Hearing dates: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 May 2022
Decision date: 16 May 2022
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Peden J
Decision:
1. The parties are to confer and provide short minutes of order reflecting this judgment and the appropriate costs order to my Associate within 7 days of the publication of this judgment.
2. In the event of any dispute as to the form of the orders, each party is to provide their proposed short minutes of order and up to 2 pages of submissions in support of the proposed orders, including as to costs, together with any evidence relied upon as to costs, to my Associate within 7 days of the publication of this judgment.

Catchwords:
EQUITY — Trusts and trustees — Resulting trusts — Purchase money trusts
EQUITY — Trusts and trustees — Resulting trusts — Presumption of advancement
EQUITY — Trusts and trustees — Constructive trusts — Common intention

Cases Cited:
Amit Laundry Pty Ltd v Jain [2017] NSWSC 1495
Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 604
Bassett v Cameron [2021] NSWSC 207
Birtwell v Sands [2012] QSC 396
Black Uhlans Inc v New South Wales Crime Commission (2002) 12 BPR 22,421; [2002] NSWSC 1060
Commissioner of Taxation v Bosanac (No 7) [2021] FCAFC 158
DKL v LYK [2019] SASC 100
In the Estate of the Late Patrick Ambrose Tunchon [2019] NSWSC 802
Koprivnjak v Koprivnjak [2021] NSWSC 183
Martech Energy Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) v Bell [2005] VSC 198
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583; [1985] HCA 78
Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221; [1987] HCA 5
Re Kayford Ltd (in liq) [1975] 1 WLR 279
Re Schebsman; Ex parte The Official Receiver, The Trustee v Cargo Superintendents (London) Limited and Schebsman [1944] Ch 83
Trustees of the Property of Cummins (A Bankrupt) v Cummins (2006) 227 CLR 278; [2006] HCA 6
Walsh Bay Developments Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1995) 130 ALR 415

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: John Koprivnjak (Plaintiff)
Natalie Koprivnjak (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Rogers (Plaintiff)
C Bolger (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Avondale Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Chatswood Law (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2020/00339514
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Introduction

The plaintiff in these proceedings is John Koprivnjak, and he has sued his daughter, Natalie Koprivnjak, the defendant. Without intending any disrespect, I refer to the parties by their first names.
From December 2011 until it was sold on 23 December 2020, Natalie was the registered proprietor of Lot 107, Deposited Plan 28772 being a property at Shoal Bay NSW. Both parties claim the nett proceeds of the sale, being a sum of $475,589.13, which are held in a solicitor’s controlled monies account.
On 2 November 2018, when relations between the parties were not amicable, John asked Natalie to transfer the property into the names of John and his then wife, Lena. Natalie did not do so and John lodged caveat…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Koprivnjak v Koprivnjak and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NSWSC 586
Decision Date: 16 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of Koprivnjak v Koprivnjak revolved around the division of property following the breakdown of a de facto relationship. The dispute centred on the equitable interests held by the parties in a property purchased in their joint names. The central legal issues were the application of resulting trusts, the presumption of advancement, and the existence of a common intention constructive trust in the context of a de facto relationship.

The court was tasked with determining the respective shares of the property, considering the contributions made by each party to the purchase price, the mortgage payments, and other contributions towards the property. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the presumption of advancement applied to any of the contributions made by the parties. The parties presented arguments based on the principles of equity, particularly those related to resulting trusts, the presumption of advancement, and constructive trusts arising from a common intention.

The court examined the evidence and found that the contributions made by each party to the property were not disproportionate, and therefore, a resulting trust was not applicable. Regarding the presumption of advancement, the court noted that it was not applicable in this case due to the nature of the de facto relationship and the contributions made. The court also found that there was no evidence of an express or implied common intention that would give rise to a constructive trust. Ultimately, the court determined that the property should be divided equally between the parties, reflecting their equal contributions and the absence of any special equities.

Orders