Michaelopoulos v Pomering [2008] NSWSC 329

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Michaelopoulos v Pomering [2008] NSWSC 329

HEARING DATE(S) : 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30 May 2006, 1, 2 June 2006, 6, 24, 25, 27, 28 July 2006, 24 August 2006, 20, 21 August 2007.

JUDGMENT DATE : 15 April 2008

JURISDICTION : Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF : Windeyer J at 1

DECISION : Defendant's claim for just allowances determined.

CATCHWORDS : Claim for just allowance on limited basis.

LEGISLATION CITED : Property (Relationships) Act 1984

CATEGORY : Principal judgment

CASES CITED : Forgeard v Shanahan (1994) 35 NSWLR 206

PARTIES : Christine Michaelopoulos (Plaintiff) Cheryl Pomering (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 3383 of 2001

COUNSEL : M Aldridge SC with him Ms A Seward and Ms J E Richards (20, 21 August 2007) (Plaintiff) Mr M B Evans with him Mr R McCrudden (Defendant)

SOLICITORS : Horowitz & Bilinsky (Plaintiff) O'Brien Lawyers (Defendant)

- 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

WINDEYER J

TUESDAY 15 APRIL 2008.

3383/01 CHRISTINE MICHAELOPOULOS V CHERYL POMERING & ORS JUDGMENT 1 This judgment concerns proceedings commenced in 2001. The plaintiff (Michaelopoulos) and the first defendant (Pomering) were in a de facto relationship which came to an end around May 1999. During that relationship they entered into a number of property transactions, the properties being for the most part purchased in the name of Pomering or in the name of some nominee. Michaelopoulos claimed that she had an interest in a number of properties and Pomering denied she had any interest. The hearing commenced before me in May 2006. After 17 days Pomering said that she was prepared to consent to a declaration and orders to the effect that Michaelopoulos was entitled to a 50% interest in six properties subject to Michaelopoulos giving credit to her in respect of 50% of the proceeds of sale of two other properties and the hearing of a claim for just allowances for improvements by the first defendant claimed to have been done on the properties in question. 2 Although I would in ordinary course have sent the claim for just allowances to be determined by a referee or an Associate Judge I was asked to deal with this myself on the basis that an account was not required, but an overall view be taken on the question of allowances. 3 The declaration and orders to give effect to this arrangement were made on 26 July 2006, being day three of the just allowance hearing, probably because I said I would not proceed further unless that were done. To make the position clear and although the orders do not appear to have been taken out, they were made by consent and are as follows: BY CONSENT:-