Calverley v Green [1984] HCA 81

High Court of Australia Gibbs C.J. Mason, Murphy, Brennan and Deane JJ. Calverley v Green [1984] HCA 81

ORDER Appeal allowed with costs. Set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales except for the orders allowing the appeal to that Court and setting aside the order of Rath J. made in the Equity Division. Order that the appellant pay to the respondent her costs of the hearing before Rath J. and of the appeal to the Court of Appeal. Stand the matter over until 12 February 1985. Order that if the parties do not apply on or before 12 February 1985 for an order by consent otherwise disposing of this appeal, the matter be remitted to the Supreme Court of New South Wales to proceed in accordance with this judgment.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Dec. 6 Gibbs C.J.

For about ten years from 1968 the parties to this appeal lived in what is nowadays called a "de facto relationship" — i.e., although not married to each other, they lived together as though they were husband and wife. They first lived at Mount Pritchard, in a house owned by the appellant, Arthur George Calverley. He paid the respondent, Dianne Lea Green, $10 per week as a contribution to the cost of the provisions that she purchased for the household; although at first that sum represented about half that cost, as time went on it came to represent a much smaller proportion. The respondent had continued in her employment and she provided from her earnings the rest of the money necessary to pay for the household provisions. In 1972, in consequence of a disagreement, the respondent left the appellant, but after a few weeks there was a reconciliation and she returned to live with him again. Both parties then thought it wise to move to more congenial surroundings, and they jointly decided that they should move to Baulkham Hills if a house could be found there at a price that the appellant could afford. A house was found in about August 1973, but the appellant at first experienced difficulty in obtaining finance. Later he told the respondent that a loan had been approved, but that the finance company required the purchase to be in the joint names of the parties, and at his suggestion she joined with him in signing an application for finance in which she was represented to be his wife. Finance was approved and the house at Baulkham Hills was purchased for $27,250. The appellant paid the deposit, which is stated in the evidence to have been $9,000, from part of the proceeds of the sale of the house at Mount Pritchard. An amount of $18,000 was borrowed on a mortgage given by both parties and under which they were jointly and severally liable to pay the sum borrowed with interest. It does not appear from the evidence how the remaining amount of the purchase price, $250, was paid, but it appears to have been paid by the appellant. The land was transferred to the parties as joint tenants. They lived together in the house, under the same arrangements as before, until April 1978, when the respondent left.