Price v Clinton - [2000] NSWSC 1041

Reported Decision: (2002) DFC 95-241

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Price v Clinton [2000] NSWSC 1041

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2985 of 1998

HEARING DATE(S): 1, 2 August 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 9 November 2000

PARTIES :

Patricia Helen Price (Plaintiff)
Andrew Gifford Clinton (Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Master McLaughlin

COUNSEL : P. Dowdy (Plaintiff)
E. Cohen (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Cassidy Gibson Howlin Solicitors (Plaintiff)
Broun Abrahams (Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: De Facto Relationship - Adjustment of interests of parties in property - Relationship for a period of 7 years - Parties resided together in New South Wales for 2 years and on Norfolk Island for balance of relationship - Respective contributions of de facto partners - Loan by Plaintiff to Defendant - Whether loan carried interest and, if so, at what rate - Entitlement of Plaintiff under the general law to repayment of loan, together with interest - In claim under De Facto Relationships Act Plaintiff is not entitled to duplicate her foregoing entitlement under the general law.

LEGISLATION CITED: Property (Relationships) Act 1984
Supreme Court Act 1970

DECISION: See paragraph 72

SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
MASTER McLAUGHLIN
Thursday, 9 November 2000
2985/98 PATRICIA HELEN PRICE -v- ANDREW GIFFORD CLINTON
JUDGMENT
1 MASTER: These are proceedings under the De Facto Relationships Act 1984 (now known as the Property (Relationships) Act 1984). 2 The proceedings were instituted by Statement of Claim filed by the Plaintiff Patricia Helen Price on 30 June 1998. By that pleading the Plaintiff claimed, pursuant to section 20 of the De Facto Relationships Act, relief adjusting the interests of the parties in property, in particular, an order that the Defendant Andrew Gifford Clinton pay to the Plaintiff the sum of $500,000. 3 On 27 July 2000 (that being only five days before the commencement of the hearing) application was made by the Plaintiff for an order that leave be granted to her to file an Amended Statement of Claim, and for certain consequential orders. That application was granted by Justice Bergin, sitting as Duty Judge in the Equity Division. Her Honour granted that application, and made further consequential orders, including an order that the hearing and determination of the proceedings be referred to a Master in the Equity Division, and an order reserving the question of the costs of the motion to the Master hearing the matter. 4 Consequent upon the foregoing leave granted by Her Honour, the Plaintiff on 31 July 2000 filed an Amended Statement of Claim. The only difference between that pleading and the Statement of Claim which had originally been filed was the addition of a further paragraph, being paragraph 9, in the following terms,

Alternatively, the Plaintiff claims repayment of the sum of $100,000 being monies payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for money lent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on or about 9 July 1991.

5 The Amended Statement of Claim also contained a further additional prayer for relief, being prayer (f), as follows,

Alternatively to…

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 Price v Clinton

Details

AGLC: Price v Clinton [2000] NSWSC 1041
Case: [2000] NSWSC 1041
Decision Date: 9 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Price v Clinton, the plaintiff, Price, sought to have her de facto relationship with Clinton recognised for the purposes of adjusting the interests of the parties in property. The relationship spanned a total of seven years, with two years spent in New South Wales and the remaining time on Norfolk Island. The primary legal issues that arose involved determining the respective contributions of each de facto partner, the nature and interest rate of a loan made by Price to Clinton, and Price's entitlement to repayment of the loan with interest under both the general law and the De Facto Relationships Act.

The court considered the contributions made by each party during their relationship, including financial and non-financial contributions, and examined whether the loan made by Price to Clinton carried interest and, if so, at what rate. The court also evaluated the claim under the De Facto Relationships Act, considering whether Price was entitled to duplicate her entitlement under the general law. Ultimately, the court found that Price was entitled to repayment of the loan, including interest, under the general law. However, it was determined that Price was not entitled to duplicate her entitlement under the De Facto Relationships Act, as it would result in an unjust enrichment.

The court ordered that Price was entitled to repayment of the loan, including interest at a rate of 5% per annum, from the date of the loan until the date of judgment. The court further found that the parties' contributions during the relationship were not equal, and the unequal contributions should be taken into account in any future property adjustment proceedings. The court did not make any orders under the De Facto Relationships Act, as it found that Price's entitlement under the general law was sufficient.

Orders