Szeto v Situ [2016] NSWSC 646

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Szeto v Situ [2016] NSWSC 646 Hearing dates: 3 and 4 June and 9 October 2015 Date of orders: 24 May 2016 Decision date: 24 May 2016 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Lindsay J Decision: (1) Declare that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in land at Carlton bought in the name of her brother, the defendant.

(2) Consequential orders. Catchwords: EQUITY – General principles – Equitable estates and interests - Nature of equitable interests and ownership – Beneficial ownership – Property purchased in the name of defendant alone – Defendant paid whole of purchase price and mortgage, not plaintiff - Plaintiff has no right or interest in property

REAL PROPERTY – General principles – Ownership – Beneficial ownership Legislation Cited: - Cases Cited: Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Muschinski v Dodds (1986) 160 CLR 583 Texts Cited: - Category: Principal judgment Parties: Plaintiff/cross defendant: Livy Szeto Defendant/cross claimant: Liming Situ Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff/cross defendant: A Norrie Defendant/cross claimant: P Cutler

Solicitors: Plaintiff/cross defendant: Advance Lawyers Group Defendant/cross claimant: Equiton File Number(s): 2014/00285214

Judgment

INTRODUCTION 1. In these proceedings the Court is called upon to determine a dispute between siblings (a sister/plaintiff and a brother/defendant) about beneficial ownership of a residential property (at Carlton, in Sydney) purchased, in the name of one of them (the defendant) alone, with the benefit of a Bank loan (from Adelaide Bank Ltd) which was made on the application of both of them. 2. The parties are in dispute, substantially, about: (a) the terms of an agreement, made between them, about beneficial entitlements to the property; and (b) the source of funds applied to purchase of the property, and in repayment of a mortgage registered on the title to the property, in favour of the Bank, consequentially upon the purchase. 3. The property the subject of contention was purchased (for $260,000) by a contract, dated 18 September 1997, settled on 21 November 1997.