Beltran v Hudspith

In *Beltran v Hudspith*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal and cross-appeal concerning the adjustment of property interests between former de facto partners. The primary dispute revolved around the trial judge's orders for the division of property, specifically a Vaucluse property, following the termination of the parties' de facto relationship.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the trial judge erred in failing to consider evidence of matters occurring after the termination of the de facto relationship up to the date of trial, and whether the trial judge failed to have regard to the provisions of section 19 of the *Property (Relationships) Act 1984* (NSW). The court was required to re-examine the exercise of discretion in making property adjustment orders to determine if they were just and equitable.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in failing to consider relevant evidence concerning post-separation events and in not properly applying section 19 of the Act. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the original orders, and made new orders. These new orders provided for the appellant to receive the respondent's 20% interest in the Vaucluse property, subject to the appellant paying the respondent $30,000 and providing a deed of indemnity regarding the mortgage over the property. The appellant was also to use her best endeavours to have the respondent released from the mortgage liability. The cross-appeal was dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the appeal.