Nguyen v Corbett (No 4)

In the case of Nguyen v Corbett, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia was tasked with considering an application for property settlement orders under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to replace earlier orders that had been set aside. The primary issue was whether the wife’s contributions during the marriage entitled her to a proprietary interest either by way of a common intention constructive trust or unjust enrichment, or if it was otherwise just and equitable to make further provision for her under section 79 of the FLA. Another significant issue was the effect of a prior court order under section 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) on the wife's cross-claim, and whether this order could be set aside.

The court considered the applicability of Anshun estoppel and whether the prior order created a security interest that could not be displaced. The court examined whether the prior order was equivalent to an order to charge the property with a liability and if it could be set aside under rule 36.16(3) or 36.15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The court also deliberated on whether the costs of unsuccessful proceedings arising from the husband's business dealings should be included in the net family assets or solely attributed to the husband, particularly given the wife’s financial benefit from those dealings.

The court concluded that the wife's contributions during the marriage did not entitle her to a proprietary interest through a common intention constructive trust or unjust enrichment, as there was no evidence of pooling of assets or a common intention. Furthermore, the prior court order under the Conveyancing Act could not be set aside because it had effectively created a security interest over the property, which could not be displaced aside from the court’s exercise of its power under section 90AE of the FLA. Consequently, the court found that it was not just and equitable to make further provision for the wife out of the property.

The court ordered that the application for property settlement orders be dismissed.