Re P

In the case of Re P, the applicant, who was the legal owner of a property, sought a judgment for possession against the respondent. The dispute centred around whether the respondent had an equitable interest in the property, which could be grounds to deny the applicant's claim for possession. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues that the court had to resolve included whether the applicant and respondent were in a de facto relationship and, if so, whether this relationship could confer any rights in the property to the respondent.

The court examined the evidence to determine if the applicant and respondent were indeed in a de facto relationship. It assessed the nature of their relationship, including the duration, financial interdependence, and the extent to which they shared a genuine domestic relationship. The court also considered whether the respondent could claim any rights in the property based on contributions to the relationship, even if these were not financial. After evaluating the evidence, the court concluded that the respondent did not have an equitable interest in the property because there was no de facto relationship between the parties, and therefore, the respondent had no defence to the claim for possession.

The court found that the respondent's claims of a de facto relationship were not substantiated by the evidence presented. The respondent's assertions were not sufficient to establish the necessary elements of a de facto relationship for the purposes of claiming an equitable interest in the property. Consequently, the court dismissed the respondent's defence and ordered the applicant to be granted judgment for possession of the property. The court ruled that there were no grounds for the respondent to retain any interest in the property, and the applicant was entitled to immediate possession.