Category Archives: Property disputes

Mallet v Mallet [1984] HCA 21 | 10 April 1984

ON THIS DAY in 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered Mallet v Mallet [1984] HCA 21; (1984) 156 CLR 605 (10 April 1984).

Equality had long been the starting point when dividing matrimonial property on divorce.  The High Court in this case held that there is not to be a presumption of equality and that each case is to be determined upon a consideration of it’s particular circumstances.

Section 79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) requires consideration of the financial contributions, non-financial contributions and parental and/or homemaker services.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Baumgartner v Baumgartner [1987] HCA 59 | 10 December 1987

ON THIS DAY IN 1987, the High Court of Australia delivered Baumgartner v Baumgartner [1987] HCA 59; (1987) 164 CLR 137 (10 December 1987).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1987/59.html

The parties had lived together in a de facto relationship. They pooled their earnings to meet all outgoings of the joint relationship, including mortgage payments over the family home purchased with the husband as the only registered proprietor.

After about four years the relationship came to an end. The wife sought a declaration that she held an interest in the property in trust. The husband asserted that only he held the legal title to the house.

The court held that the wife held a beneficial interest in the property by way of constructive trust.

Per Mason CJ, Wilson and Deane JJ at 149:

“The case is accordingly one in which the parties have pooled their earnings for the purposes of their joint relationship, one of the purposes of that relationship being to secure accommodation for themselves and their child. Their contributions, financial and otherwise, to the acquisition of the land, the building of the house, the purchase of furniture and the making of their home, were on the basis of, and for the purposes of, that joint relationship. In this situation the appellant’s assertion, after the relationship had failed, that the Leumeah property, which was financed in part through the pooled funds, is his sole property, is his property beneficially to the exclusion of any interest at all on the part of the respondent, amounts to unconscionable conduct which attracts the intervention of equity and the imposition of a constructive trust at the suit of the respondent.”

The High Court declared that the parties hold beneficial interests in the property of 55% to the husband and 45% to the wife, subject to adjustments.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Baumgartner v Baumgartner [1987] HCA 59

ON 10 DECEMBER 1987, the High Court of Australia delivered Baumgartner v Baumgartner [1987] HCA 59; (1987) 164 CLR 137 (10 December 1987).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1987/59.html

The parties had lived together in a de facto relationship. They pooled their earnings to meet all outgoings of the joint relationship, including mortgage payments over the family home purchased with the husband as the only registered proprietor.

After about four years the relationship came to an end. The wife sought a declaration that she held an interest in the property in trust. The husband asserted that only he held the legal title to the property.

The court held that the wife held a beneficial interest in the property by way of constructive trust.

Per Mason CJ, Wilson and Deane JJ at 149:

“The case is accordingly one in which the parties have pooled their earnings for the purposes of their joint relationship, one of the purposes of that relationship being to secure accommodation for themselves and their child. Their contributions, financial and otherwise, to the acquisition of the land, the building of the house, the purchase of furniture and the making of their home, were on the basis of, and for the purposes of, that joint relationship. In this situation the appellant’s assertion, after the relationship had failed, that the Leumeah property, which was financed in part through the pooled funds, is his sole property, is his property beneficially to the exclusion of any interest at all on the part of the respondent, amounts to unconscionable conduct which attracts the intervention of equity and the imposition of a constructive trust at the suit of the respondent.”

The High Court declared that the parties hold beneficial interests in the property of 55% to the husband and 45% to the wife, subject to adjustments.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Norbis v Norbis [1986] HCA 17

Norbis v Norbis [1986] HCA 17; (1986) 161 CLR 513 (30 April 1986).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/161clr513.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Muschinski v Dodds [1985] HCA 78

Muschinski v Dodds [1985] HCA 78; (1985) 160 CLR 583 (6 December 1985).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/160clr583.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Mallet v Mallet [1984] HCA 21

ON 10 APRIL 1984, the High Court of Australia delivered Mallet v Mallet [1984] HCA 21; (1984) 156 CLR 605 (10 April 1984).

Equality had long been the starting point when dividing matrimonial property on divorce.  The High Court in this case held that there is not to be a presumption of equality and that each case is to be determined upon a consideration of it’s particular circumstances.

Section 79(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) requires consideration of the financial contributions, non-financial contributions and parental and/or homemaker services.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Sydney Solicitors

Ascot Investments Pty Ltd v Harper [1981] HCA 1; (1981) 148 CLR 337 (2 February 1981).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/148clr337.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Sydney Lawyers

Ascot Investments Pty Ltd v Harper [1981] HCA 1; (1981) 148 CLR 337 (2 February 1981).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/148clr337.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Ascot Investments Pty Ltd v Harper [1981] HCA 1

Ascot Investments Pty Ltd v Harper [1981] HCA 1; (1981) 148 CLR 337 (2 February 1981).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/148clr337.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088