The applicant and respondent were in a romantic relationship and lived together at a property solely owned by the respondent.
The respondent provided the down payment, while the applicant contributed significant unpaid labour to renovate the property.
After the parties separated, the respondent sold the property and retained the net proceeds.
The applicant brought a claim for unjust enrichment.
The court found that the applicant's labour conferred a benefit on the respondent with a corresponding deprivation and no juristic reason.
The court concluded the parties were engaged in a joint family venture and awarded the applicant a monetary remedy calculated on a value surviving basis, entitling him to half of the adjusted net proceeds of the sale.
