Nguyen v Scheiff - [2003] NSWSC 253

CITATION: Nguyen v Scheiff [2003] NSWSC 253

HEARING DATE(S): 17-18 December 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 April 2003

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Acting Master Berecry

DECISION: I make the following declarations and orders:; On the Amended Statement of Claim:; A) I declare that the plaintiff and the defendant hold the property known as 20 Valleyview Crescent, Greenwich, on trust for the plaintiff.; B) I order that the defendant transfer her interest in 20 Valleyview Crescent, Greenwich, to the plaintiff forthwith.; C) I declare that the contents of the property known as 20 Valleyview Crescent, Greenwich, excepting the defendant's personal possessions and contents owned by the defendant, be the sole property of the plaintiff.; D) I declare that the plaintiff and the defendant have the sole right, title and interest in:; i all chattels, goods, furnishings and property which stand in their sole name respectively at the date hereof;; ii any money, shares, debentures or superannuation entitlements which stand in their sole name respectively at the date hereof.; E) The defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the Cross-Claim.; On the Cross-Claim:; A) I order that the Cross-Claim be dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: De facto relationship - commencement of relationship - factors determining - nature of relationship - significant financial contributions by one party - both parties employed during relationship - no children of relationship - non-financial contributions - whether defendant worked for plaintiff's company - post separation contributions - exclusive occupation by one party - whether a contribution by other party - resulting trust - whether common intention established to rebut the presumption

LEGISLATION CITED: Property (Relationships) Act 1984, ss4,20,38,53

CASES CITED: Biviano v Natoli (1998) 43 NSWLR 695
Brown & Anor v Brown & Anor (1993) 31 NSWLR 582
Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242
Cowcher v Cowcher [1972] 1 WLR 425
Gazzard v Winders (1998) 23 Fam LR 716
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583
Wallace v Stanford (1995) 37 NSWLR 1
Nguyen v Schieff [2002] NSWSC 151

PARTIES :
Philip Kim Nguyen
(Plaintiff)
v
Jitka Maree Scheiff
(Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1296/02

COUNSEL: P - Ms A Rees
D - Mr T Hodgson

SOLICITORS: P - Keddies Solicitors
D - Neil Lawson & Co. Solicitors

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

Acting Master Berecry

7 APRIL 2003

1296/02 - PHILIP KIM NGUYEN v JITKA MAREE SCHEIFF

JUDGMENT

1 MASTER: The plaintiff seeks the following declarations:

a) that the plaintiff and the defendant hold the property located at 20 Valleyview Crescent, Greenwich, on trust for the plaintiff;

b) that the contents of the property at 20 Valleyview Crescent, Greenwich, excepting the defendant’s personal possessions and contents owned by the defendant prior to the commencement of the parties’ relationship be declared the sole property of the plaintiff; and

c) that the parties be declared to have the sole right, title and interest in any property etc standing solely in their name, respectively.

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 Nguyen v Scheiff

Details

AGLC: Nguyen v Scheiff [2003] NSWSC 253
Case: [2003] NSWSC 253
Decision Date: 7 April 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Nguyen v Scheiff involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Nguyen, and the defendant, Scheiff, concerning the existence and nature of their relationship, which the plaintiff claimed was a de facto relationship. The dispute was heard in the Family Court of Australia, where the plaintiff sought a declaration that a de facto relationship existed and an order for the distribution of property acquired during the relationship. The defendant denied that such a relationship existed or, if it did, that any common intention had been established regarding the distribution of their property.

The court was required to determine whether the relationship between the parties met the legal criteria for a de facto relationship under the Family Law Act 1975. This involved assessing several factors, including the nature of the relationship, whether there were significant financial contributions by one party, the duration of the relationship, whether the parties were both employed during the relationship, the presence of any children of the relationship, and the non-financial contributions made by either party. Additionally, the court considered whether any contributions were made by the defendant post-separation, whether there was an exclusive occupation by one party of the property in question, and if a common intention had been established to rebut the presumption of equal shares in the property.

The court found that the relationship did meet the criteria for a de facto relationship, as it involved a genuine partnership, with both parties contributing financially and non-financially. The court emphasised the significant financial contributions made by the plaintiff and noted that the defendant's employment by the plaintiff's company constituted a form of non-financial contribution. The court also considered the exclusive occupation of the property by the plaintiff and the absence of post-separation contributions by the defendant. The court concluded that the common intention to share the property equally had been established, thereby rebutting the presumption of equal shares.

The final orders of the court declared that a de facto relationship existed between the parties, and it made orders for the distribution of the property in accordance with the common intention established by the parties.

Orders