Peterson v Hottes

In the matter of Peterson v Hottes, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the defendant was liable to repay a sum of $70,911.01 that she had received from her mother to assist in purchasing a property. The dispute arose after the relationship between the parties broke down irretrievably. The court was required to decide whether the defendant's retention of the money was unconscionable and whether there was a presumption of advancement that could be rebutted. The plaintiff also sought the return of some household goods.

The court found that the mother's intention was to assist her daughter in purchasing a property, not to acquire an interest in the property. The mother did not intend to have any equitable or legal interest in the property. The court also found that the presumption of advancement was rebutted because the mother's intention was clear and unequivocal. The court held that it would be unconscionable for the defendant to retain the money after the relationship broke down irretrievably.

Accordingly, the court declared that the defendant became liable to repay the sum of $70,911.01 to the plaintiff from 31 December 2007. The court also ordered that the defendant deliver to the plaintiff the cedar chest of drawers and the cedar wardrobe described in the further amended statement of claim. The proceeding was adjourned to enable the parties to make submissions on what further orders should be made to give effect to these reasons, including whether any further orders should be made in relation to the repayment of the sum of $70,911.01 and interest on that sum, and what orders should be made for the costs of the proceeding.