Beattie v Reid - [2000] NSWSC 97

CITATION: Beattie v Reid [2000] NSWSC 97

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1266/99

HEARING DATE(S): 17/02/2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 29 February 2000

PARTIES :

Janet Patricia Beattie v John Robert Reid

JUDGMENT OF: Master Macready at 1

COUNSEL : Mr M.F. Le Poer Trench for plaintiff
Mr G.J. Watkins for defendant

SOLICITORS: Kacie Safi & Halligan for plaintiff
David Trodden & Associates for defendant

CATCHWORDS: Family Law. Application for extention of time under s 18 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984. Principles upon which an extension is granted discussed. Application granted

CASES CITED: Bevan v Falshaw 15 Fam LR 686;
In the Marriage of Whitford (1979) FLC 90-612

DECISION: Paragraph 16

- 1 -

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

MASTER MACREADY

29 February 2000.

1266/99 JANET PATRICIA BEATTIE v JOHN ROBERT REID

JUDGMENT

1 MASTER: There is presently for hearing before me an application brought by the defendant by way of a Notice of Motion filed on 6 October 1999. The applicant seeks leave to commence proceedings under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 out of time. The proceedings are brought by the defendant’s former partner seeking orders under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act. The orders are sought in respect of the property owned by the plaintiff and the defendant as joint tenants. 2 The parties commenced a de facto relationship either in 1969, according to the plaintiff, or in 1972 according to the defendant. In 1972 the property 60 Harrabrook Avenue, Five Dock was purchased in the name of the defendant. They cohabited thereafter in the property. In May 1977 the property was transferred from the defendant’s name to the plaintiff and the defendant as joint tenants. No consideration was paid on that transfer. In 1990 the parties separated and after that there was still further contact between them to which I will return later. It does however seem that they are agreed that the relationship finished in 1990. There were no children of the relationship but the plaintiff had two young children aged five and seven at the time of the commencement of the relationship and they lived with the parties throughout the relationship. 3 Section 18 of the Act is in the following terms:-

“18 Time limit for making applications

(1) If a domestic relationship has ceased, an application to a court for an order under this Part can only be made within the period of 2 years after the date on which the relationship ceased, except as otherwise provided by this section.

(2) A court may, at any time after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (1), grant leave to a party to a domestic relationship to apply to the court for an order under this Part (other than an order under (1) made where the court is satisfied as to the matters specified in (1)(b)) where the court is satisfied, having regard to such matters as it considers relevant, that greater hardship would be caused to the…

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 Beattie v Reid

Details

AGLC: Beattie v Reid [2000] NSWSC 97
Case: [2000] NSWSC 97
Decision Date: 29 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in Beattie v Reid were the applicants, Beattie, and the respondents, Reid. The dispute centred around an application for an extension of time under section 18 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The applicants sought an extension to file an application for a declaration of property interests under section 90SB of the Family Law Act 1975, arguing that there were special circumstances justifying the extension.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants had demonstrated special circumstances sufficient to warrant an extension of time beyond the statutory period. The court had to consider the principles established in previous case law for granting such extensions. This involved examining whether the delay was through no fault of the applicants, and whether there were compelling reasons that justified the extension. The court also needed to assess the potential impact of the delay on the respondent and any prejudice that might result from the granting of the extension.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the applicants had indeed demonstrated special circumstances. The applicants' delay in filing the application was attributed to their mental health issues, which were beyond their control. The court found that the delay was not due to any neglect or carelessness on their part. Additionally, the court considered that the respondents would not be prejudiced by the extension as they had been aware of the applicants' intention to make the application and had already provided relevant information. Given these factors, the court was satisfied that granting the extension was appropriate and in the interests of justice. The application was subsequently granted.

The court's final order was that the application for an extension of time was granted, allowing the applicants to file their application for a declaration of property interests outside the statutory period. The specific terms of the order would have detailed the new deadline for filing the application and any other conditions deemed necessary by the court.

Orders