Krupin & Krupin (No 2)

This case involves the parties Mr Krupin, Ms Krupin, Ms Angeloff, Ms Petrov, and B Pty Ltd. The dispute revolves around the equitable interests in properties owned by these individuals. The court was tasked with determining the validity of various claims for equitable interests in the properties, including those based on express trusts, constructive trusts, resulting trusts, and equitable estoppel. Furthermore, it had to assess the contributions and future needs of the parties involved, particularly Mr Krupin and Ms Krupin.

The legal issues before the court included the credibility of Mr Krupin, the calculation of contributions based entitlements, and the appropriate division of the matrimonial property pool. The court also had to consider the fiduciary relationship between trustee and beneficiary, particularly in relation to the unauthorized transfer of a share in the trustee company. The judge examined the fiduciary relationship, the contributions of each party, and their respective future needs to arrive at a just and equitable distribution of the properties.

The court concluded that a distribution of the matrimonial property pool in the proportion of 55 per cent in favour of Mr Krupin and 45 per cent in favour of Ms Krupin was just and equitable. The court deemed it appropriate to order the sale of E Street and G Street, with the proceeds to be divided between the parties. The court appointed a Trustee for Sale to manage the sales and appointed a Trustee for Sale to effect the sale of both properties. It also ordered that Ms Petrov does not hold any equitable interest in either property and dismissed her claims. The court further declared that neither Mr Krupin nor Ms Krupin have any equitable interest or entitlement in the C Street property and declared Ms Angeloff as the sole owner of that property. The costs, fees, and outlays of the Trustee for Sale were to be paid equally by Mr Krupin and Ms Krupin.

The court made several orders, including the requirement for the Registrar to forward a copy of the Reasons for Judgment to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration of potential offences. The parties were required to submit a draft order reflecting the Reasons for Judgment within twenty-one days. The court also amended the Reasons for Judgment to correct minor typographical or grammatical errors.