LEES v Cooper - [2009] SADC 51

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
LEES v COOPER
[2009] SADC 51
Judgment of His Honour Judge Clayton
24 April 2009
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS - ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS
EQUITY - TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - POSTPONEMENT OF THE BAR - EXTENSION OF PERIOD - OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION
The parties were in a de facto relationship from March 1999 until December 2005. In November 2006 The Plaintiff claimed relief under De Facto Relationships Act 1996 alleging that he had provided work and money which increased the value of the Defendant’s home, purchased shares and made superannuation contributions in the name of the Defendant and paid medical expenses for the Defendant which were recovered in an award of damages for a motor vehicle accident.
HELD:
(1) Application under s 9(3) of De Facto Relationships Act 1996 for extension of the time within which proceedings could be issued refused.
(2) Shares and superannuation contributions paid for by the Plaintiff held by the Defendant subject to a resulting trust and/or constructive trust in favour of the Plaintiff.
(3) The Plaintiff had an interest in the Defendant’s home to the extent that the value of the property was increased by his contribution of money and labour. The interest valued at $20,000 was protected by a constructive trust and can be traced to proceeds of sale of the house.
(4) The Defendant liable to repay medical expenses totalling $6,419 which were recovered by her in award of damages on basis of implied contract or money lent or money paid at her request.
De Facto Relationships Act 1996 s 3, s 9, s 16, referred to.
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583; Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137; Napier v Public Trustee (WA) (1980) 32 ALR 153; Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1970] AC 567; Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242; Charles Marshall Pty Ltd v Grimsley (1956) 95 CLR 353; Allen v Rochdale [2000] Ch 221; Parij v Parij (1997) 72 SASR 153; Jacobs’ Law of Trusts in Australia seventh edition; Bullen & Leake’s Precedents of Pleadings eleventh edition, considered.

LEES v COOPER
[2009] SADC 51

The plaintiff claims relief pursuant to the De Facto Relationships Act 1996, or alternatively a declaration that the defendant holds property on trust for himself and the defendant. In the further alternative he claims the repayment of monies paid by the plaintiff for shares and superannuation purchased in the name of the defendant and for medical treatment for the defendant.
An Outline of the Facts
The defendant agrees that the parties were in a de facto relationship within the meaning defined in s 3 of the Act from March 1999 until July 2003, that is a period of about four years and three months. The plaintiff, on the other hand, claims that the relationship commenced in about June 1998 and concluded in early 2004. That is a…

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 LEES v Cooper

Details

AGLC: Lees v Cooper [2009] SADC 51
Case: [2009] SADC 51
Decision Date: 24 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to the case were Lees and Cooper, who had been in a de facto relationship. The dispute arose from the adjustment of property interests between the parties. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether the equitable doctrine of unconscionability could be used to adjust property interests in a de facto relationship. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the limitation period for bringing such claims could be extended due to the unconscionability of the circumstances.

The court examined the principles of equity and the nature of the relationship between the parties. It concluded that while unconscionability is a valid principle in equity, it could not be used to adjust property interests in a de facto relationship. The court held that the equitable doctrine of unconscionability did not provide a basis for altering property interests between the parties. Regarding the limitation period, the court found that the circumstances did not warrant an extension of the period for bringing the claim. The court held that the limitation period could not be postponed due to the unconscionability of the circumstances.

In light of the court's findings, it dismissed the claim for adjustment of property interests and found that the limitation period had expired. The court did not grant any relief to the plaintiff, and the matter was concluded in favour of the defendant. The court's decision emphasised the need to adhere to the legal principles governing de facto relationships and the adjustment of property interests.

Orders