Metcalf v Zhang

In the matter of Metcalf v Zhang, the plaintiff, Metcalf, and the defendant, Zhang, entered into a joint purchase of two properties, one in Alexandria and the other in Waterloo, in equal shares as tenants in common. The dispute arose from the sale of the Alexandria property and the division of the proceeds, as well as the respective shares of the Waterloo property. The parties also raised cross claims regarding the existence of trusts and the division of the Waterloo property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether the Alexandria property was subject to a constructive or resulting trust, and whether the parties made equal contributions, both financial and non-financial, to the acquisition of the property. The court also had to decide whether the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) deprived it of jurisdiction to hear these proceedings between former de facto spouses, and whether the proceedings dealt with property and financial matters arising out of the breakdown of a de facto relationship or whether they fell under the "carve out" of jurisdiction conferred on the court by s 90RC(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

The court found that there was no constructive or resulting trust in relation to the Alexandria property, as the parties had agreed to hold the property in equal shares and had made equal contributions to the acquisition. The court also found that the proceedings did not fall under the "carve out" of jurisdiction conferred on it by s 90RC(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), and therefore it had jurisdiction to hear the case. The court ordered that the proceeds of sale of the Alexandria property be divided equally between the parties, and that the Waterloo property be sold and the proceeds divided equally, subject to any claim by the plaintiff for contributions made by him to the acquisition of the property.

The court also found that the defendant had made contributions to the acquisition of the Waterloo property, and that the parties' respective shares in the Waterloo property would be determined by the court after hearing further evidence. The court made orders for the appointment of trustees for the sale of the Waterloo property and the division of the proceeds.