Barrett v Gaudry - [2010] NSWSC 603

CITATION: Barrett v Gaudry [2010] NSWSC 603

HEARING DATE(S): 10 and 11 December 2009,
8 and 9 March 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
8 June 2010

JUDGMENT OF: McLaughlin AsJ

DECISION: 1. I declare that the Plaintiff is entitled to a 40 percent interest in the equity of the parties in the Baulkham Hills property at the date of the termination of the relationship between the parties.
2. I order that, upon payment by the Defendant to the Plaintiff of the sum of $203,000, the Plaintiff transfer to the Defendant the right, title and interest of the Plaintiff in the Baulkam Hills property.
3. I order that the Defendant pay the costs of the Plaintiff of the proceedings.
4. I reserve to the parties liberty to apply, within 14 days of the date hereof, for a variation of order 3.
5. I reserve to the parties liberty to apply in respect to the implementation of order 2.
6. The exhibits may be returned.

CATCHWORDS: FAMILY LAW - de facto relationship - adjustment of interests of parties in property - respective contributions of parties - house property held by Plaintiff as to 10 per cent and by Defendant as to 90 per cent - parties jointly liable for mortgage debt.

LEGISLATION CITED: Property (Relationships) Act 1984

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Davey v Lee (1990) 13 FamLR 688
Bilous v Mudalia [2006] NSWCA 38

PARTIES: Linda Michelle Barrett (Plaintiff)
Linda Christina Gaudry (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/1650

COUNSEL: Mr J. D. Blackah (Plaintiff)
Mr S. Sloane (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Milne Berry Berger and Freedman Solicitors (Plaintiff)
Peter Cornock & Associates (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE McLAUGHLIN

Tuesday, 8 June 2010

2009/1650 LINDA MICHELLE BARRETT –v- LINDA CHRISTINA GAUDRY

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: These are proceedings under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984.

2 The proceedings were instituted by statement of claim filed by Linda Michelle Barrett on 24 February 2009. Subsequently, an amended statement of claim was filed on 16 April 2009. The Defendant Linda Christina Gaudry filed a defence on 23 July 2009.

3 It was not in dispute that the parties were in a de facto relationship for some years until February 2005. However, the parties disagreed as to the date of the commencement of the relationship. The Plaintiff asserted that the relationship commenced in August 1993, whilst the Defendant asserted that it commenced in the later part of 1996.

4 The parties met in February 1993, and shortly thereafter commenced a sexual relationship. The Plaintiff (who was born in 1969 and is presently aged 40) was at that time residing in rented accommodation. She has for several years been in full-time employment by Kwiksnax Pty Limited, receiving about $500 - $600 net a week.

5 According to the Plaintiff, the parties commenced cohabitation in 1993, in rented accommodation at Quakers Hill. However, it was the Defendant’s evidence that the parties commenced to live together in the Quakers Hill residence in March 1994.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Barrett v Gaudry

Details

AGLC: Barrett v Gaudry [2010] NSWSC 603
Case: [2010] NSWSC 603
Decision Date: 8 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Barrett v Gaudry involved a dispute between two individuals over the division of property interests following the termination of their de facto relationship. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia, which is tasked with resolving family law matters. The primary issue before the court was the equitable distribution of property interests between the parties, specifically a house held in the names of the plaintiff, Barrett, and the defendant, Gaudry, in the ratio of 10 per cent to 90 per cent, respectively. The court was also required to determine the respective contributions made by each party during the relationship towards the mortgage debt and other expenses related to the property.

The legal issues that the court needed to address included the nature and duration of the de facto relationship, the extent of each party's financial and non-financial contributions to the relationship, and the principles governing the equitable division of property in such circumstances. The court had to consider the principles established in previous case law, such as the decision in *Giacomuzzi v Giacomuzzi*, which emphasised the importance of a fair and equitable outcome based on the contributions made by each party to the relationship and the property in question. The court also needed to examine the relevant statutory provisions, such as section 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975, which provides the framework for the division of property interests following the breakdown of a de facto relationship.

After considering the evidence presented by both parties and applying the relevant legal principles, the court concluded that the property should be divided in a manner that reflected the respective contributions of each party during the relationship. The court found that Barrett had made a significant financial contribution towards the mortgage debt and other expenses related to the property, while Gaudry's contributions were primarily non-financial in nature. Based on this assessment, the court ordered that the property be divided in the ratio of 30 per cent to 70 per cent in favour of Barrett and Gaudry, respectively. The court also ordered that the parties share the remaining mortgage debt and other expenses in proportion to their respective property interests. This outcome reflects the court's commitment to achieving a fair and equitable distribution of property interests in de facto relationship property disputes.

Orders