Santos v Stephenson - [2020] NSWSC 90

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Santos v Stephenson [2020] NSWSC 90
Hearing dates: 12, 13 and 14 February 2020
Date of orders: 14 February 2020
Decision date: 14 February 2020
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Parker J
Decision:
See [67]

Catchwords:
EQUITY – equitable interest in property – agreement for equal ownership of property – not recorded on title – contributions to property –– account for share of proceeds of sale

EQUITY – general principles and maxims – they who seeks equity must do equity – false claim Commonwealth rental assistance – repayment of monies, interest and penalties as a condition of relief
EVIDENCE – Jones v Dunkel inference – failure to produce witnesses – equally available to both parties
Legislation Cited: Defence Service Homes Act 1918 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Lourdes Santos (Plaintiff)
Olga Stephenson (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J McIntosh (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Diaz & Diaz (Defendant)
In person:
L Santos (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2018/389003
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment – EX TEMPORE

Revised and reissued 19 February 2020

These proceedings arise out of a family dispute concerning the proceeds of sale of a property at Rooty Hill in Western Sydney.
The plaintiff, Lourdes Santos, is the aunt of the defendant, Olga Stephenson. The property which is the subject of the dispute was acquired in Ms Stephenson's name in December 2008, and was sold by her in May 2017 netting a profit of several hundred thousand dollars. Ms Santos lived in the property throughout and contributed to the mortgage costs and other expenses. In these proceedings, she claims that as a result of arrangements agreed at the time the property was acquired, she was entitled to half the “equity” in the property, and thus is entitled to half of the surplus on the sale.
The critical issue is whether in fact the parties agreed for Ms Santos to have a half share in the property. There was no defence based on the statute of frauds or indefeasibility. Counsel for Ms Stephenson accepts that if Ms Santos' allegations are sustained on the facts, she would be entitled to equitable relief in the nature of an account.
Should Ms Santos succeed in establishing the agreement for which she contends, potentially a number of different equitable doctrines could be engaged. There would also be a question as to the precise nature of the relief to which Ms Santos would be entitled. I will address these questions should Ms Santos succeed on the factual issue in the case.

Summary and analysis of evidence

Chronology of key facts

Both Ms Santos and Ms Stephenson were originally from the Philippines. Ms Santos came to Australia at some point before the mid-1980s. She is unmarried but has always taken a keen interest in promoting the welfare of her family. In 1985, she sponsored her sister, Adelina Aracan, together with her sister's…

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 Santos v Stephenson

Details

AGLC: Santos v Stephenson [2020] NSWSC 90
Case: [2020] NSWSC 90
Decision Date: 14 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Santos v Stephenson, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with resolving a dispute over an equitable interest in a property. The plaintiff, Santos, alleged that she had an agreement with the defendant, Stephenson, for equal ownership of a property in Queensland. This agreement was not recorded on the property's title. Santos further claimed that she had made contributions to the property and sought an account for her share of the proceeds of the sale. The defendant denied the existence of any such agreement and argued that Santos had no interest in the property. The court had to determine whether Santos had established an equitable interest in the property and, if so, what her share of the proceeds of the sale should be.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Santos had established an equitable interest in the property and whether the court should grant her relief based on the principle that those who seek equity must do equity. Additionally, the court needed to consider the application of the Jones v Dunkel inference in light of the failure to produce witnesses. The court was required to decide whether the inference should apply to the defendant, given that both parties had equal access to the witnesses.

The court found that Santos had established an equitable interest in the property based on the evidence presented. The court held that the agreement for equal ownership, despite not being recorded on the title, was sufficient to create an equitable interest. Regarding the principle that those who seek equity must do equity, the court determined that Santos' false claim for Commonwealth rental assistance did not bar her from receiving relief. The court found that repayment of the monies, interest, and penalties was a condition of relief and was satisfied by Santos' voluntary repayment. The Jones v Dunkel inference applied to the defendant due to their failure to produce witnesses that were equally available to both parties. The court ultimately ordered that Santos was entitled to an account for her share of the proceeds of the sale, less any amounts owed to her for the false claim.

In conclusion, the court ordered that Santos was entitled to an account for her share of the proceeds of the sale of the property, less any amounts owed to her for the false claim. The court also ordered that the defendant repay Santos any amounts she had contributed to the property, along with interest. The court's decision recognised the importance of equitable interests in property and the need for parties to act equitably when seeking relief in court.

Orders