Jundi v Saco [2015] NSWSC 1835

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jundi v Saco [2015] NSWSC 1835 Hearing dates: 2 December 2015 Date of orders: 02 December 2015 Decision date: 02 December 2015 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Pembroke J Decision: Summons dismissed Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs Catchwords: EQUITY – equitable charge to secure contribution to mortgage repayments – need for proportionality – necessity of demonstrating that it would be inequitable or unconscionable for defendant to retain benefit conferred by plaintiff Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) Cases Cited: Chalmers v Pardoe [1963] 3 All ER 522; [1963] 1 WLR 677 Morris v Morris [1982] 1 NSWLR 61 Public Trustee v Kukula (1990) 14 Fam LR 97 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Leanne Jundi – plaintiff Anthony Saco – defendant Representation: Counsel: C Robinson – for the plaintiff A Paterson – for the defendant

Solicitors: Cambridge Law – for the plaintiff Maatouks Law Group – for the defendant File Number(s): 2015/152792

Judgment

Introduction 1. This is a foolish case, the weakness of which was made even more apparent by the evidence of the plaintiff. She was so lacking in credibility and made so many admissions that contradicted statements in her affidavits, that counsel for the defendant saw no need to call his client. He was justified in doing so. 2. When the proceedings were commenced, the plaintiff claimed that she had an interest in certain real estate at Sadlier Avenue, Sadlier, pursuant to various types of trusts. She claimed a resulting trust and a constructive trust, among other things. When the hearing commenced, those claims were abandoned and the claim was confined to an allegation that the plaintiff was entitled to an equitable charge over the property to secure the payment to her of the sum of $22,400. That is the only amount in question. 3. The sole factual basis for the plaintiff's claim for an equitable charge is that between January 2014 and February 2015 she contributed $22,400 towards the repayment of a loan that the defendant had taken out with the National Australia Bank. At the time of the payments, the plaintiff believed that she was in what was likely to be a permanent relationship with the defendant. Her claim entirely ignored the overall financial relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant including, in particular, the many monetary contributions that the defendant made for the plaintiff's benefit. And it ignores the evidence of the agreement between the parties that they had decided that, since the plaintiff was earning a stable wage, she could pay off the mortgage as if she were repaying her car loan.