Thelma Langford v Deva and Diane Reddy [2014] NSWSC 609

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Thelma Langford v Deva and Diane Reddy [2014] NSWSC 609 Hearing dates: 15 May 2014 Decision date: 15 May 2014 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Sackar J Decision: See paragraphs [21], [22], [23] Catchwords: EQUITY - parties entitled to proceeds of sale of property - no dispute as to existence of improvements to property or that some money borrowed under mortgage to fund improvements - dispute over exact sum spent on improvements as opposed to personal expenditure - where paucity of documentation in relation to some amounts said to be expended on improvements - where Court does "the best it can" Cases Cited: Ali v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 183 Cubillo v Commonwealth of Australia [2000] FCA 1084; (2000) 174 ALR 97 McCrohon v Harith [2010] NSWCA 67 Paino v Paino (2008) 40 Fam LR 96 Thelma Langford v Deva and Diane Reddy [2012] NSWSC 289 Category: Consequential orders Parties: Thelma Langford (plaintiff) Deva Reddy (first defendant) Diane Reddy (second defendant) Representation: Counsel: A McQuillan (plaintiff) M B Evans (first and second defendants) Solicitors: Jenman Lawyers (plaintiff) O'Brien Lawyers (defendants) File Number(s): 2009/289222

Judgment

Proceedings 1I gave judgment in these proceedings on 29 March 2012 and the background facts are adequately set out there: see Thelma Langford v Deva and Diane Reddy [2012] NSWSC 289. 2In that judgment, I made a declaration that the first and second defendants held their legal ownership of 42 Caley Street, Chifley (the property) subject to a constructive trust of a life estate in the property in favour of the plaintiff. 3On 19 June 2013 I made orders by consent that the property the subject of the litigation be sold subject to the supervision of the Court and in accordance with certain orders and directions as to the sale process, and the proceeds of such. 4The property was sold on 19 December 2013 and the purchase was settled for $1.170 million on 30 January 2014. The amount owing to the mortgagee was paid out and was initially held in a trust account held by the solicitors for the defendants. As a result of a directions hearing on 27 February 2014, a joint account was to be opened that could only be operated upon the joint authority of the solicitors for both parties. 5The question that remains for determination is as to how much is owed to the first and second defendants from the proceeds. The essence of the dispute is the challenge made by the plaintiff to certain amounts borrowed under the mortgage and alleged by the defendants to have been spent on improvements to the property. The plaintiff asserts that part or the whole of these amounts were in fact spent on purposes unrelated to the improvement of the property.