Legal Research
Cases
Parkas v Shankar

Parkas v Shankar

Case [2025] NSWSC 1140 30 September 2025

Equitable Estoppel

Equitable Contribution

Costs

Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Parkas v Shankar [2025] NSWSC 1140
Hearing dates: 18 - 19 September 2025
Date of orders: 30 September 2025
Decision date: 30 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Richmond J
Decision:
1. Direct the parties to bring in draft orders to give effect to these reasons by 4pm on 6 October 2025.
2. Liberty to apply.

Catchwords:
LAND LAW — Co-ownership — Statutory trust for sale — Division of net proceeds — Account for income and profits
LAND LAW — Co-ownership — Rights between co-owners — Equitable contribution — Where no resulting trust, joint endeavour constructive trust or common intention constructive trust present — Whether co-owner can claim for work done personally as opposed to monetary expenditures in respect of improvements to the land
COSTS — Application for appointment of trustees for sale pursuant to s 66G Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) — Where ‘usual order’ for costs in such proceedings to be defrayed out of proceeds of sale — Whether one party’s conduct sufficiently unreasonable to warrant departure from ‘usual order’

Legislation Cited:
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 66G
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 15
Partnership Act 1892 (NSW), s 1
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 31.19

Cases Cited:
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137; [1987] HCA 59
Boulter v Boulter (1898) 19 LR (NSW) (Eq) 135
Brennan v Duncan [2006] NSWSC 674
Cardinaels-Hooper v Tierney (1995) 7 BPR 14,435
Chetwynd v Rose [2021] NSWCA 193
Chow v Chow (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1348; (2015) 18 BPR 35,385
Kardos v Sarbutt (No 2) [2006] NSWCA 206
Leighv Dickeson (1884) 15 QBD 60
Lewin v Lewin [2019] NSWSC 380
Maio v Sacco [2009] NSWSC 413; (2009) 14 BPR 27,591
Mushinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583; [1985] HCA 78
Nichols v NFS Agribusiness Pty Ltd (2018) 97 NSWLR 581; [2018] NSWCA 84
Re Pavlou (a bankrupt) [1993] 1 WLR 1046
Ryan v Dries [2002] NSWCA 3; (2002) 10 BPR 19,947
Slim v Kabra [2006] NSWSC 837
Squire v Rogers (1979) 39 FLR 106
Stibbard-Leaver v Leaver [2021] NSWSC 65
Hungerford v Richardson [2018] NSWSC 1543

Texts Cited:
Brendan Edgeworth, Butt’s Land Law (7th ed, Thomson Reuters, 2017)
J D Heydon, M J Leeming and P G Turner, Meagher, Gummow & Lehane’s Equity: Doctrines & Remedies (5th ed, LexisNexis, 2015)
S Bridge, E Cooke and M Dixon, Megarry & Wade: The Law of Real Property (9th ed, Sweet & Maxwell, 2019)
Practice Note SC Eq 5

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Sneh Lalas Parkas (Plaintiff)
Nand Kishore Shankar (First Defendant)
Kiran Shankar (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
G McGrath (Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
D’Agostino Solicitors (Plaintiff)
Gonzales & Co Solicitors (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2022/386262
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

These proceedings concern a dispute over the sale of a property located at Blacktown, New South Wales (the Property) which was owned as tenants in common by the plaintiff as to 50% and the defendants as…

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 Parkas v Shankar

Details

AGLC: Parkas v Shankar [2025] NSWSC 1140
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1140
Decision Date: 30 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Parkas v Shankar involved a dispute between co-owners of a property, seeking clarification on the division of net proceeds from the sale and the entitlement to equitable contributions for personal labour towards improvements. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue was whether the defendant was entitled to an equitable contribution for work performed on the property, rather than merely monetary contributions, and if so, whether this could be quantified and factored into the division of the proceeds from the sale.

The court examined whether the absence of a resulting trust, joint endeavour constructive trust, or common intention constructive trust precluded the defendant from claiming for personal labour as opposed to financial outlays. It was determined that while monetary contributions could be accounted for in the division of proceeds, the quantification of personal labour contributions was more challenging and subjective. The court held that personal labour could be considered if it was integral to the improvement and enhancement of the property, but it required a clear demonstration of the value of the work performed.

In reaching its decision, the court noted that while there was no precedent for directly attributing the value of personal labour to the division of proceeds, the principle of equitable contribution could still apply. The court emphasised the need for detailed evidence and an objective assessment of the work done to ensure fairness in the division of proceeds. The court also addressed the issue of costs, ruling that while the usual practice was to pay costs from the proceeds of sale, the plaintiff's conduct could be considered in exceptional circumstances, leading to a departure from this norm.

The final orders included an assessment of the personal labour contributions and their value, which would be incorporated into the calculation of the net proceeds. The court appointed trustees for the sale of the property and directed that the costs of the application be paid from the proceeds, with a specific allocation for the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct. The decision underscored the importance of equitable considerations in co-ownership disputes and the need for transparent and detailed evidence when claiming contributions for personal labour.

Orders