VOYNOVICH V. VOYNOVICH 20/1952

Aa 20 figs ae

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUS? 2ALIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

"

of Q"

4.3 Gontley, Gort, Print, Merb. 7168/51

JUDGMENT

VOYNOVICH

ve

VOYNOVICH

DIXON C.J. WILLIAMS J. FULLAGAR J.

} i

VOYNOVIC.

Ve

VOYNOVICH

JUDGMENT : DIXON C.J. WILLIAMS J. FULLAGAR J. KITTO Je TAYLOR J.

This is an appeal from an Order made by His Honour

Mr. Justice Gavan Duffy upon the hearing of a summons under Section 20 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1928. The husband took out the summons to which his wife is the respondent. She is the appellant in this Court, The question in dispute to the solution of which the summons was directed arose from the ' ownership of a piece of land. The wife had previously been . married and had been divorced, She and her former husband were joint tenants of a piece of land. After her divorce she was married to the applicant in the summons on the 19th May, 1948. Shortly after the marriage a question arose between her then husband, the applicant in the summons, and herself, as to the { acquisition of the undivided half share of her former husband

in the piece of land which she held as joint tenant with hin,

The up=shot was that he found £150 for the purpose. That sum

of money was paid to the former husband and a transfer of the

undivided half interest was made into her name. It is not quite clear whether the sum of money was paid to her and she became a | party to the transaction with her former husband or whether her

new husband was a party to the transaction with the former husband :

but directed that the half share should be transferred to her. On that piece of land a dwelling house was built, I will not say ; by their joint efforts, but rather by their joint efforts at first !

i and then by their successive efforts. They separated before the | |

-2-

house was completed, & good deal of bitterness arose between them and in the end the hushand made the applicetion under the Married Wémen's Property Act for a declaration that he was entitled to an undivided half share in the piece of land to which I have referred. His Honour, having heard the summons upon affidavit evidence and upon evidence given by the parties on their oral examination, made an order declaring simply that the applicant is entitled to a half share in the net proceeds of the sale of the property, the subject matter of the present dispute. The proceeds of the property amounted to the sum of £3,571.18.11, and was held jointly by the solicitors for the applicant and the respondent respectively in a certain bank. The property was, in fact, sold immediately after the issue of the summons and the net sum of money it raised was that amount, which is mentioned in the order. It is necessary now to turn to the building. The building was begun at a time when the wife and husband were living temporarily in a restored amity. He found a sum of money for the purposes