Price v Clinton [2000] NSWSC 1041

Reported Decision : (2002) DFC 95-241

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Price v Clinton [2000] NSWSC 1041 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2985 of 1998 HEARING DATE(S) : 1, 2 August 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 9 November 2000

PARTIES : Patricia Helen Price (Plaintiff) Andrew Gifford Clinton (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Master McLaughlin

COUNSEL : P. Dowdy (Plaintiff) E. Cohen (Defendant) SOLICITORS : Cassidy Gibson Howlin Solicitors (Plaintiff) Broun Abrahams (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : De Facto Relationship - Adjustment of interests of parties in property - Relationship for a period of 7 years - Parties resided together in New South Wales for 2 years and on Norfolk Island for balance of relationship - Respective contributions of de facto partners - Loan by Plaintiff to Defendant - Whether loan carried interest and, if so, at what rate - Entitlement of Plaintiff under the general law to repayment of loan, together with interest - In claim under De Facto Relationships Act Plaintiff is not entitled to duplicate her foregoing entitlement under the general law. LEGISLATION CITED : Property (Relationships) Act 1984 Supreme Court Act 1970 DECISION : See paragraph 72

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

MASTER McLAUGHLIN

Thursday, 9 November 2000

2985/98 PATRICIA HELEN PRICE -v- ANDREW GIFFORD CLINTON JUDGMENT

1 MASTER: These are proceedings under the De Facto Relationships Act 1984 (now known as the Property (Relationships) Act 1984). 2 The proceedings were instituted by Statement of Claim filed by the Plaintiff Patricia Helen Price on 30 June 1998. By that pleading the Plaintiff claimed, pursuant to section 20 of the De Facto Relationships Act, relief adjusting the interests of the parties in property, in particular, an order that the Defendant Andrew Gifford Clinton pay to the Plaintiff the sum of $500,000. 3 On 27 July 2000 (that being only five days before the commencement of the hearing) application was made by the Plaintiff for an order that leave be granted to her to file an Amended Statement of Claim, and for certain consequential orders. That application was granted by Justice Bergin, sitting as Duty Judge in the Equity Division. Her Honour granted that application, and made further consequential orders, including an order that the hearing and determination of the proceedings be referred to a Master in the Equity Division, and an order reserving the question of the costs of the motion to the Master hearing the matter. 4 Consequent upon the foregoing leave granted by Her Honour, the Plaintiff on 31 July 2000 filed an Amended Statement of Claim. The only difference between that pleading and the Statement of Claim which had originally been filed was the addition of a further paragraph, being paragraph 9, in the following terms, Alternatively, the Plaintiff claims repayment of the sum of $100,000 being monies payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for money lent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on or about 9 July 1991. 5 The Amended Statement of Claim also contained a further additional prayer for relief, being prayer (f), as follows, Alternatively to relief under the Property (Relationships) Act, 1984 judgment for $100,000 together with interest under the Supreme Court Act or on some other appropriate basis. 6 By his Amended Defence, filed at the commencement of the hearing on 1 August 2000, the Defendant as follows responded to the allegation contained in paragraph 9 of the Amended Statement of Claim, 11. In answer to paragraph 9 of the Amended Statement of Claim the Defendant denies that the Defendant still owes $100,000 to the Plaintiff.