Perry v Gao

The case of Perry v Gao involved a dispute over the ownership of a house between the plaintiff, Perry, and the defendant, Gao, who were in a de facto relationship. Perry argued that he was entitled to half the property, while Gao claimed sole ownership. The matter was initially heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the case under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), given that the parties had initially commenced proceedings under inoperable State legislation.

The court had to decide whether the Supreme Court of NSW had jurisdiction over de facto financial causes under cross-vesting legislation, and whether the matter should be transferred to the Family Court or Federal Circuit Court. The court also needed to address whether Perry's sale of his house and transfer of the proceeds to Gao, who became the sole registered proprietor of another house, constituted a trust or gift, and whether the transaction was influenced by undue influence or unconscionable conduct. Additionally, the court had to consider the enforceability of a financial agreement between the parties and the appropriate adjustment of property interests upon dissolution of the de facto relationship.

The court found that it did have jurisdiction to hear the de facto financial cause and that the matter should not be transferred. It held that Perry's transfer of the proceeds from the sale of his house to Gao did not create a trust, as he intended to make a gift of the property to her. However, the transaction was set aside on the grounds of undue influence and unconscionable conduct, as Perry was a lonely, elderly man who did not receive independent legal advice and was subjected to pressure from Gao. The financial agreement between the parties was deemed impracticable and was also set aside. Finally, the court ordered that Perry was entitled to a 50% interest in the property, which would be distributed to him following its sale by trustees.

The court ordered that Perry is entitled to a 50% interest in the property, to be distributed to him following its sale by trustees.