Dean v Zeene [2019] NSWSC 1481

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dean v Zeene [2019] NSWSC 1481 Hearing dates: 27-31 March, 25 May, and 31 July to 3 August 2017, 26 April and 24 October 2018, final submissions received 2 April 2019 Decision date: 01 November 2019 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Robb J Decision: See pars 147 to 150 Catchwords: PARTNERSHIPS AND JOINT VENTURES — Rights and duties between partners — Actions between partners — Declaration and calculation of amounts outstanding owed by each party to failed partnership — partnership accounting — Principles governing adoption of referees' reports

PARTNERSHIPS AND JOINT VENTURES — Rights and duties between partners — Actions between partners — Maintenance of charge over property to secure debt owed under prior consent orders Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Caska v Leigh [2018] NSWSC 466 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Cherylyn Tonia Dean (plaintiff/first cross-defendant) Peter Elias Zeene (defendant/cross-claimant) Eileen Joan Dean (second cross-defendant) Representation: Counsel: B Adam (plaintiff/cross-defendants) G George (defendant/cross-claimant)

Solicitors: The People's Solicitors (plaintiff/cross-defendants) Margiotta Solicitors (defendant/cross-claimant) File Number(s): 2015/80375

Judgment 1. The plaintiff in these proceedings, Ms Cherylyn Tonia Dean, and the defendant, Mr Peter Elias Zeene, were formerly married. The event that has led to their present predicament was a decision they made after their divorce to enter into a partnership to construct four home units at Woy Woy, NSW. On any view, the venture has been a financial disaster. Apparently, the parties entered into the partnership agreement on about 26 May 2004. They are still indebted in consequence. It is not clear how each will be able to pay their debts. The outcome of these proceedings may not finally relieve their travails. 2. On the seventh day of a protracted eight-day final hearing, the prospect of settlement emerged serendipitously. In essence, each party abandoned significant positions that they had adopted, and the possibility of a consensus emerged. In consequence, orders were made by the Court by consent on 3 August 2017. Further orders were made by consent on 8 September 2017, for the purpose of accounts being taken between the parties with the aid of a referee.