Vekilis v Jarvie

In this case, the respondent, Michael Vekilis, sought an order under section 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 to adjust the property interests of himself and the appellant, Michael Jarvie, following the breakdown of their de facto relationship of over twelve years. The primary legal issue for the court was whether it was just and equitable to make an order under section 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984, despite the appellant's absence and failure to file an affidavit of financial position. The court also had to consider the respondent's contributions to the acquisition, conservation, and improvement of the appellant's properties.

The court found that it was not necessary for the respondent's claim for an order under section 20 to be considered a debt provable in the appellant's bankruptcy. The absence of the appellant, who had not filed an affidavit of financial position, did not preclude the court from making a just and equitable order. The evidence presented indicated that the respondent had made both direct and indirect contributions to the appellant's properties. Given the length of the de facto relationship and the respondent's contributions, the court concluded that it was just and equitable to make an order under section 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984, adjusting the interests of the parties in the property.

The court ordered that the respondent's entitlement to an adjustment of property interests was to be satisfied by a lump sum payment of $300,000, which was to be secured by a charge over the property at 32a Cambridge Street, Redfern. Additionally, the court ordered that the parties share the costs of the proceeding equally.