Davies v Winters [2020] NSWSC 375

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Davies v Winters [2020] NSWSC 375 Hearing dates: 7, 8 and 9 April 2020 Decision date: 11 May 2020 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Lindsay J Decision: Orders to be made for adjustment of property interests under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 NSW. Catchwords: PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1984 – de facto relationship – adjustment of property interests Legislation Cited: Property (Relationships) Act 1984 NSW Cases Cited: - Texts Cited: - Category: Principal judgment Parties: Plaintiff: Clive Davies Defendant: Frances Winters Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff: G Elliott Defendant: PM Friedlander

Solicitors: Plaintiff: Blackshaw Lindsay Defendant: Sharah & Associates File Number(s): 2017/00255719

Judgment

INTRODUCTION 1. In these proceedings the plaintiff (a male, born in October 1952) and the defendant (a female, born in March 1954), formerly partners in a de facto relationship, make competing claims (in equity and via sections 18 and 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 NSW) to ownership of a residential property in Wigram Road, Faulconbridge in the State of NSW, purchased in the name of the defendant during the currency of their relationship. 2. A determination of those claims incidentally involves consideration of: (a) the parties' competing, historical claims to beneficial ownership of another residential property (purchased in the name of the plaintiff during their relationship, and sold by him at about the time the relationship ceased) located in St Georges Crescent, Faulconbridge; and (b) the plaintiff's use of proceeds of his sale of that property in his purchase of his current residence in Double Bay without the consent of the defendant. 3. Passing reference must also be made to two other residential properties. 4. At the commencement of their relationship the plaintiff owned a property in Park Road, Springwood (which he sold in early 2006), the proceeds of sale of which later helped fund his purchase of the Double Bay property. 5. At the commencement of the relationship the defendant owned (as she still does) a property in Valley Road, Springwood. She and her children lived there before they commenced living with the plaintiff at the Park Road property in or about January 1993. Rooms in the Valley Road property are now rented out by the defendant. 6. Insofar as these proceedings fall to be determined by reference to the Property (Relationships) Act 1984, changes in their respective net asset positions over the course of their relationship can be measured broadly by reference to their acquisition of the St Georges Crescent and Wigram Road properties during the currency of the relationship. 7. At the commencement of the relationship, they each separately owned a residence: in the case of the plaintiff, the Park Road property; in the case of the defendant, the Valley Road property. At the time their relationship ceased (whenever, precisely, that may have occurred) they each retained those separate properties or (in the case of the plaintiff) an asset of equivalent value.