BLM v RWS

[2006] QSC 139

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	BLM v RWS  [2006] QSC 139
PARTIES:	BLM (applicant) v RWS (respondent)
FILE NO:	BS 4508/04
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court
DELIVERED ON:	13 June 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6, 7, 8, 9 February 2006
JUDGE:	Mackenzie J
ORDER:	1. The findings of fact are set out in the reasons. 2. The parties shall confer forthwith with a view to agreeing on a form of order to implement these findings, and as to costs. 3. Failing agreement, the parties shall make submissions in writing concerning the form of orders, such submissions to be delivered to my Associate no later than 4pm Wednesday 21 June 2003.
CATCHWORDS:	FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS – application under Part 19 Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) – where length of de facto relationship approximately 4 ½ years – where two children of the relationship – where applicant came to the relationship with no major assets – where respondent had substantial assets – where homemaking and parenting contributions claimed by applicant - where “general store” was purchased in joint names during relationship – where purchase facilitated by a loan in joint names and by disposal of some of the respondent’s assets – where issues of credibility involved – where allegations of domestic violence made by applicant -where applicant claimed poor psychological health – whether adjustment in respect of the partnership business should be made in favour of the applicant EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY – IN GENERAL – where allegation made by the applicant that the respondent sexually interfered with the youngest child of the relationship – where respondent charged in respect of allegations - where charges against respondent dismissed after committal proceedings – whether evidence of these allegations should be excluded because the applicant had been discharged in the Magistrates Court – if admissible, what weight should be attached to the evidence Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) Adelaide Chemical & Fertiliser Company Ltd v Carlyle (1940) 64 CLR 514, cited Chang v Su [2002] FamCA 156, cited E v S [2003] QSC 378, cited F v H [2006] QSC 100, cited Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midland Police (1981) 3 WLR 906, cited Kennon v Kennon (1997) 22 Fam LR 1, followed Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605, followed Nominal Defendant v Clements (1960) 104 CLR 476, cited Reichel v McGrath (1889) 14 App Cases 665, cited Weir v Weir (1992) 110 FLR 403, cited
COUNSEL:	J McClymont for the applicant J O’Neill for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	McDonald Brown Solicitors for the applicant Douglas Law for the respondent

1. : MACKENZIE JThese are proceedings under Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld). The claim was for a property adjustment order under which the respondent would pay the plaintiff 60% of the total net value of the partnership business, a general store, and the real…