Legal Research
Cases
Kurzyp v Kurzyp

Kurzyp v Kurzyp

Case [2021] NSWSC 851 15 July 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kurzyp v Kurzyp [2021] NSWSC 851
Hearing dates: 3 – 5 February 2021, last submissions 22 February 2021
Decision date: 15 July 2021
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Rees J
Decision:
Parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order, recording declaration of resulting trust, an account for rent, statutory sale and costs.

Catchwords:
EQUITY – resulting trust – defacto couple purchase family home in 1987 – few contemporaneous documents – defacto wife contributed to purchase price – husband held half of interest in property on resulting trust for wife – husband to account for half of rental income – defence of laches not established.
FAMILY LAW – matrimonial cause – whether the Court should determine the application – leave not required to commence proceedings under s 44(3), Family Law Act – proceedings within s 78, Family Law Act – consent implied where no objection raised until 2 years after proceedings were commenced – this Court should determine the matter.
ESTOPPEL – consent orders made in Family Court without admission that appropriate forum was in Poland – in fact, Polish Court has no jurisdiction in respect of Australian property – whether issue estoppel, Anshun estoppel or abuse of process – no estoppel or abuse of process found.

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 140
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4, 44, 78, 79
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) s 94K
Stamp Duties Act 1920 (NSW) ss 41, 65, second schedule

Cases Cited:
Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564; [1992] HCA 10
Amit Laundry Pty Ltd v Jain [2017] NSWSC 1495
Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93
Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corp (No 9) and (No 10) (2008) 39 WAR 1; [2008] WASC 239
Black Uhlans Incorporated v New South Wales Crime Commission [2002] NSWSC 1060; (2002) 12 BPR 22,421
Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464; [1939] HCA 23
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34
Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242; [1984] HCA 81
Carringville Pty Ltd v Gatto Group Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 123; (2003) 11 BPR 21,069
Cetojevic v Cetojevic [2006] NSWSC 431
Choi v Kim [2013] NSWSC 1774
Chung-Yi Pty Ltd v Chih-Yang Chang (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1112; (2018) 128 ACSR 585
City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission (1999) 199 CLR 135; [2000] HCA 5
Cleary v Jeans (2006) 65 NSWLR 355; [2006] NSWCA 9
Clementi v Rossi [2019] VSC 725
Commissioner of Taxation v Bosanac (No 7) [2021] FCA 249; (2021) 390 ALR 74
Crawley v Short [2009] NSWCA 410; (2009) 262 ALR 654
DA Christie Pty Ltd v Baker [1996] 2 VR 582
Dualcorp Pty Ltd v Remo Constructions Pty Ltd (2009) 74 NSWLR 190; [2009] NSWCA 69
Duke Group Ltd (in liq) v Alamain Investments Ltd [2003] SASC 415

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 Kurzyp v Kurzyp

Details

AGLC: Kurzyp v Kurzyp [2021] NSWSC 851
Case: [2021] NSWSC 851
Decision Date: 15 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kurzyp v Kurzyp is a case involving a defacto couple who purchased a family home in 1987. The dispute centred on the ownership of the property and the respective contributions of each party. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the defacto wife, who had contributed to the purchase price, was entitled to a resulting trust over half of the property, and whether the husband should account for half of the rental income.

The court had to determine whether the wife was entitled to a resulting trust over half of the property, considering the limited contemporaneous documents and the defacto relationship context. The court also needed to decide if the husband was required to account for half of the rental income to the wife. Additionally, the court examined the defence of laches, which was not established in this case.

In its reasoning, the court found that the wife was indeed entitled to a resulting trust over half of the property, given her contributions to the purchase price. The court determined that the husband should account for half of the rental income to the wife. The court dismissed the defence of laches and found no estoppel or abuse of process in the context of the proceedings. The final orders required the husband to account for half of the rental income to the wife and dismissed the wife's claim for further relief.

Orders