Bowmaker v Hodgson

[2003] NSWSC 792

CITATION:	Bowmaker v Hodgson [2003] NSWSC 792
HEARING DATE(S):	17 & 18 July 2003
JUDGMENT DATE:	29 August 2003
JURISDICTION:	Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF:	Master Macready at 1
DECISION:
CATCHWORDS:	Family Law. Application under Property Relationships Act for adjustment of parties' property interests. Whether a global approach is appropriate. Orders made.
PARTIES :	Heather Bowmaker v Donald Edward Hodgson
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 2260/2002
COUNSEL:	R. Wilson for plaintiff G. O'Gorman for defendant
SOLICITORS:	Marrion &Oliver for plaintiff Donnelly Lawyers for defendant

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

MASTER MACREADY

Friday 29 August 2003

2260/2002 HEATHER BOWMAKER v DONALD EDWARD HODGSON

JUDGMENT

1 MASTER: This is an application under s 20 of the Property Relationships Act in which the parties seek adjustment of their property interests pursuant to s 20. There were no children of the relationship between the parties and there were no children of either party who were cared for by the parties during the course of the relationship.

2 Throughout the period of the relationship the parties bought, refurbished and sold a number of different properties. In order to understand these transactions I will first set out a general chronology of the relevant events and then return to the commencement and conclusion dates of the relationship.

Chronology

3 The defendant was born on 11 December 1936 and, accordingly, is now 66 years of age. The plaintiff was born on 7 January 1956 and is now 47 years of age. They first met in 1980 and at that stage the defendant was still married.

4 One of the properties that was still owned by the defendant during the course of the relationship was a property at 136 Charles Street, Minnamurra which was purchased by the defendant and his former wife in 1980 for $55,000.

5 On 11 October 1984 the defendant purchased in his name a property at 244 Trafalgar Street, Annandale for $82,000. It was financed by a mortgage from the Commonwealth Bank for $45,000 and the balance of the funds were provided by the defendant.

6 The parties had commenced a sexual relationship in 1982 and in October 1985 the plaintiff moved into the property at Annandale while the defendant remained living at French’s Forrest with his family. The plaintiff apparently lived there for some short time in the order of three or more weeks and then vacated the property after an argument with the defendant. She then returned to the United Kingdom. Some renovation work had been done prior to her vacating the property and more was done after she had left.

7 On 8 January 1986 the plaintiff, at the defendant’s request, returned to Australia to resume her relationship with the defendant. On being met in Sydney by the defendant the plaintiff was told that the defendant had made a mistake, that he could not leave his wife and children and that she would have to return. She returned to the United Kingdom the next day.

8 In April 1986 the defendant moved to the United Kingdom and commenced living with the plaintiff in the flat which the plaintiff had leased in Ham.

9 In June 1986 the defendant sold his property at Annandale for $115,000 and received after discharge of the mortgage some $66,000.

10 In June 1986 the parties purchased a property 43 Sugden Road, Long Ditton, London for 110,416 pounds , including the costs of purchase. The purchase was financed by the defendant as to 20,416 pounds, a Building Society loan of 70,000 pounds and $20,000 loan from his employer. The property was held by the parties as tenants in common with the plaintiff having a 10% share and the remaining 90% being held by the defendant. The parties undertook renovations to the property over the period they owned it. The property was sold in April 1987 for 172,500 pounds. The plaintiff received 14,700 pounds being 45% of the proceeds of sale and the defendant 18,342 being 55% of the proceeds of sale. In August 1987 the defendant returned to Australia. In September 1987 the plaintiff purchased a home as an investment at 23a Bellevue Road, Kingston upon Thames for 59,950 pounds using the funds which she had received from the Long Ditton property. At the same time the defendant, who was then in Australia purchased a property at 38 Lincoln Street, Stanmore for $210,000. The defendant supplied approximately $150,000 from his savings and obtained a loan of $65,000 from the Commonwealth Bank. He then commenced renovations to the property. In November 1987 the plaintiff returned to Sydney and moved into the Stanmore property.

11 On 18 April 1989 the defendant was divorced from his wife Cynthia. Consent orders were made in the Family Court on 12 September 1990 under which the defendant retained the Lincoln Street, Stanmore property and his wife retained their jointly owned property at Frenchs Forrest. Under the terms the property at Minnamurra was to be put to auction with the defendant receiving one half of the net proceeds plus $48,000.

12 On 10 July 1990 the plaintiff injured herself walking through a plate glass window. On 30 September 1994 she received net an amount of $42,623 as result of a compensation claim arising from that accident.

13 In November 1990 she commenced employment with Master Catering services as an accountant where she continued to work until February 1996

14 On 1 February 1991 the defendant purchased the interest of his former wife in the property at Charles Street, Minnamurra at auction for $163,000 funded as to $35,000 by a mortgage from the Commonwealth Bank. The parties continued to use this property as a weekender. The property had two separate houses on it. One of them fronted a road and was normally tenanted. The other house fronted the beach and had a granny flat attached which was normally tenanted. The balance of the house was occasionally used by the parties as a weekender until 1996 when the property at Jaspers Brush was purchased .

15 On 25 November 1994 the Stanmore property was sold for $485,000. The parties had already arranged to purchase a property at Hunters Hill subject to sub-division being approved. They moved into that property pending completion. The defendant paid $400,000 on account of the purchase and because of this the parties did not have to pay any rent for the period they resided there. Their residence there was for a period of 12 months and they moved out as the vendor could not complete the subdivision and thus the sale.

16 In June 1995 the plaintiff sold her property in England at Kingston upon Thames for 57,000 pounds and received after discharge of the mortgage 5,447 pounds. She transferred some of these funds to her account at the State Bank in Sydney.

17 On 25 September 1995 the parties purchased a property at 69 Henry Street, Five Dock for $490,000 at auction. They purchased it as tenants in common the plaintiff having a 10% interest and the defendant a 90% interest. The plaintiff actually contributed more than her 10% to the purchase as her contributions were some $57,000. The balance of the funds were provided by the defendant except for funds borrowed from the Commonwealth Bank pending the receipt back by the defendant of $400,000 which was paid in respect of the failed Hunters Hill transaction. He received that on 14 December 1996 and applied it to the mortgage which was discharged.

18 On 19 March 1996 the plaintiff received 11,653 pounds in settlement of a life insurance policy which she cashed in and a sum of $A25, 314 was transferred to her account with the State Bank at Leichhardt

19 By the middle of June 1996 the mortgage to the Commonwealth Bank over the Minnamurra property was discharged. All payments in respect of this property, its purchase and mortgage, had been contributed to by the defendant.

20 In August 1996 the Five Dock property was sold for $520,000 realising about $508,000 after expenses. This venture had not produced any profit for the parties.

21 In July 1996 the plaintiff’s work with the Administrator of Master Catering ceased.

22 In the meantime the parties had sought to purchase another property and on 28 August 1996 they purchased a property at 120 O’Keefes Lane, Jaspers Brush for $595,000. The plaintiff had a one quarter interest as tenant in common and the defendant a three quarter interest as tenant in common. The actual contributions by the plaintiff to the purchase were $51,757 with the defendant providing the balance of the purchase price. The parties also purchased stock and some vehicles in order to carry on farming operations on the property.

23 In June 1999 the defendant alleges that the de facto relationship ceased when he commenced to live in a separate bedroom at the property.

24 In November 1999 the plaintiff was diagnosed with cancer and had to undergo an operation, radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

25 By September 2000 the relationship between the parties had deteriorated so much that an Apprehended Violence Order was obtained by the defendant against the plaintiff. The plaintiff left the premises collecting some of her personal property on 21 September some time after she had departed.

26 In October or November 2000 the defendant gave the plaintiff $10,000 pending settlement of their property claims. She returned to the United Kingdom. On 17 October 2000 the defendant sold the Minnamurra property for $650,000 receiving, after expenses, $631,584.

27 Proceedings were commenced in June 2001 in the District Court and were subsequently transferred to this Court. In April 2003 the defendant transferred a further sum of $10,000 to the plaintiff so that she could come from England for the hearing of these proceedings.

Commencement of the relationship

28 There is very little evidence of the parties having intended to commence their relationship while the plaintiff was in Australia in 1985. The plaintiff resided for a very short time at the defendant’s property at Annandale while he was residing elsewhere. She then departed after an argument with the defendant and returned to England. It is perfectly clear that the defendant intended to live with the plaintiff when he left to move to England. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the de facto relationship commenced when the parties resided together in England in May 1986.

Conclusion of the relationship

29 The plaintiff concedes that there were some periods when they shared separate rooms particularly after she had had a hysterectomy and was suffering from the effects of the cancer treatment. However, she denies that the relationship concluded in 1999. There is no particular evidence advanced by the defendant that showed any intention to live separately and apart and, in the absence of more particular evidence, I am satisfied that the relationship concluded in September 2000 when the parties physically separated.

Plaintiff’s assets at the commencement of the relationship

30 At the commencement of the relationship the plaintiff had some furniture and a motor vehicle. The value of these items does not appear in the evidence.

Defendant’s assets at the commencement of the relationship

31 At the commencement of the relationship the defendant and his then wife jointly owned their home at Frenchs Forrest which was valued at about $300,000. He also jointly owned with his then wife a holiday home at Minnamurra. The evidence does not indicate what the value of the house at Minnamurra was at the time of commencement of the relationship. The defendant also had approximately $95,000 in cash a large part of which had come from the sale of the Annandale property.

The parties’ assets at the date of separation

32 At the date of separation the parties jointly owned the property at Jaspers Brush which was then worth approximately $650,000. The defendant owned the Minnamurra property which, having regard to its sale in October, would have then been valued at $650,000. The parties also had some farm equipment valued at $17,075 and household furniture valued at $34,880. They had livestock the value of which is in dispute and to which I will refer shortly. The defendant also had some shares in AMP, BHP and NAB. The evidence is not clear as to their value but they are probably in the order of $80,000. The defendant also had a vehicle the value of which is not known.

33 The parties also had a financial resource which was an annuity which was purchased in 1996 and provided the defendant with an income of $3,153 per month for a period of ten years.

The pool of assets at the conclusion of the relationship

34 As I have mentioned, the property at Minnamurra was sold in October 2000 for $650,000. Those funds were received by the defendant and invested in a variety of investments which he still held at the time of the hearing. The pool of assets which were held at the time of hearing were as follows:-

Jointly owned
Jaspers Brush property $700,000.00

Owned by the defendant
Cash Management Call Account CBA $231,486.78
Cheque Account CBA $25,880.55
Bank West Money Market account $202,090.31
Shares Chess Holdings Rivkin Stockbroking $184,180.00
Security Chess Rivkin Stockbroking $60,216.00
NAB National Income Securities $10,901.00
Farm Equipment $17,075.00
Household Contents and Furniture $25,880.00
Troop Carrier $16,000.00
Stock and Cows $17,950.00
Jaguar car $5,000

Plaintiff’s Assets
Renault car $3500
Furniture $1,500
Total Assets:- $1,501,165.96

Liabilities

Defendant’s debts as per Affidavit sworn 17 July 2003
(excluding legal expenses) $12,000.00

Plaintiff’s debts as per paragraph 26(f) approximately $8,500.00

Total Liabilities:- $20,500.00

Net matrimonial pool of assets:- $1,481,159.64

Financial Resources

Plaintiff’s superannuation gross value (subject to tax) $12,603.05
Defendant’s annuity (purchased for $296,000 in 1996)
which has provided him with an income stream of $3,153.00 per month concluding July 2006.

35 There is a debate about the value of the cattle which depends upon how many are presently held. Given the same valuer valued them each time, I think the appropriate valuation to adopt, as the valuer would know what was on the property, is the sum of $17,950.

36 The parties each maintained separate bank accounts and they did not intermix their monies through any joint account. However, at one stage they did have one joint loan account. They both worked substantially during the relationship and it is useful to note the parties’ earnings for this period.

37 The plaintiff worked when she was in England after the commencement of the relationship. The details of her earnings do not appear in the evidence. When she returned to Australia in November 1987 she commenced employment with Computer Application Pty Ltd earning $33,000 per annum until February 1990 when she started her own business. In July 1990 she had an accident when she walked through a plate glass window which stopped her working for about a month or two. In November 1990 she commenced employment with Master Catering Services and remained employed there until the parties moved to Jaspers Brush in 1996. She described her earnings in that period as:

19.11.90- - 30.6.91 $21,538.56
Year ended 30.6.93 $35,014
Year ended 30.6.94 $35,000 plus supplementary income of $2,635
Year ended 30.6.95 $35,000 and approximately $10,000 from Airline Laundry
Year ended 30.6.96 $36,029 together with an Eligible Termination Payment of $4,084 and additional income of $10,000 from Airline Laundry
Year ended 30.7.97 $2,992 plus $1,952
Year ended 30.7.98 $4,282

38 This is a total from November 1987 of about $248,488.

39 The defendant’s employment and evidence revealed the following income:-

May 1986 until December 1987 at the rate of 80,080 pounds gross per annum with fringe benefits of two cars and mortgage benefits and an income of $200 per week for rent from Minnamurra.
January 1988 to July 1990 $70,200 gross per annum plus a car and the same rent from Minnamurra.
August 1990 to July 1991 $89,960 gross plus bonuses and a car and rent from Minnamurra.
August 1991 to December 1991 unemployed as renovating full time at Stanmore. Income of $200 per week from Minnamurra.
December 1991 to May 1992 $70,200 per annum plus a car plus rent from Minnamurra.
June 1992 to August 1996 $70,200 gross per annum plus a car and food plus rent from Minnamurra. From June 1992 the parties received food from Master Catering with whom both were employed to the value of $200 per week.
From August 1996 the defendant was engaged in farming at Jaspers Brush and received income at the rate of $17,160 per annum from rental from Minnamurra.

40 From 1996 the defendant also received $3,153 a month from the annuity which he purchased which brought his annual income up to $54,996. His total gross income excluding benefits from January 1988 up to separation in September 2000 was thus in the order of $883,415.

41 Over that period of the relationship between 1988 and 2000 it can be seen, with some extrapolations, that the plaintiff’s income was in the order of $248,488 and the defendant’s income in the order of $883,415. It must be remembered that the plaintiff was ill and could not work during the last two years of the relationship.

42 Earlier in this chronology I have referred to contributions made by the parties to the purchase of the various properties. In this regard the plaintiff’s contributions from the cashing in of her life policy in March 1996 was for 11,653.95 pounds. Those funds totalling $38,507 were applied to the purchase of Jaspers Brush and she also sold her Pajero motor vehicle for $13,250 which was applied to the purchase of stock or equipment for Jaspers Brush.

43 During the period of the relationship it was the defendant who made repayments for all housing loans, be they interest or principal, Council and water rates, electricity, gas and phone accounts and insurance premiums.

Non-financial contributions

44 During the period of the parties’ relationship they did not have children nor did they have children living with them. There was not a lot of evidence about the various homemaking contributions. The plaintiff in her affidavit claimed that she did the cooking, washing up and housework while the defendant submitted that the plaintiff did most of the cooking up until her illness in 1999. He claimed that he did his own ironing and made his own breakfast and lunch and vacuumed the house. The defendant admits that the plaintiff did some gardening. There was little cross examination which would enable me to resolve that conflict.

45 In her affidavit evidence the plaintiff conceded that their relationship had deteriorated during the period when she was undergoing treatment for cancer. This prompted the defendant to put on detailed evidence of the plaintiff’s drinking habits in the last six years or so of the relationship. It is plain from this evidence, which was not objected to, that the plaintiff had a drinking problem which worsened over the years. Although it did not prevent her working it was sufficiently serious to have affected the relationship over the last few years of its existence and it also affected the plaintiff’s ability to assist in homemaking matters.

46 I am satisfied that during the early years of the relationship the plaintiff carried out most of the homemaking. No doubt the defendant took over more of these tasks towards the end of the relationship. In any event these contributions, although they have to be given weight, in this case are not of such great significance bearing in mind that through most of the period both parties were working and no children were involved.

47 The more controversial area in this case is the assessment of the non-financial contributions to the renovation of the various properties. I turn to each property in turn.

Annandale property

48 This property was owned by the defendant prior to the commencement of the relationship. However, having regard to the circumstances of the parties contemplating their future relationship at the time, it is appropriate to take into account such contributions. See Del Gallo v Frederickson (2000) 27 Fam LR 162 and Jones v Grech (2001) 27 Fam LR 711. The Annandale property had some alterations and repairs made to it prior to the defendant suggesting to the plaintiff that she move into that property. At that time he was still living with his wife. He says that he replaced some timber bearers and joists to the roof region and he also replaced part of the roof. The parties are at issue as to how long the plaintiff was in the property. The defendant put it as a matter of weeks while the plaintiff says it was several months. Of the work that seems to have been done the plaintiff described some of the work that she did, namely, stripping fireplaces, cleaning walls, filling holes in walls and painting the main room, bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, hall and staircase in the upstairs flat. She also says that they commenced work on the downstairs flat. In the defendant’s evidence he says he did this work with the assistance of the plaintiff.

49 After the plaintiff left the premises the defendant carried out the remaining renovations which were substantially greater than the work that had been done by the plaintiff and the defendant earlier. In my view the plaintiff spent some time assisting the defendant stripping, preparing for painting and painting several rooms in the property.

Long Ditton property

50 The plaintiff gave evidence that she would get home at 5.00pm and commence work on the renovation before making the evening meal which was usually after the defendant arrived home at about 8.00pm. This seemed to be the routine while they were living in the premises. The defendant suggested, and I accept, that before they moved into the premises he was often there working to get the premises ready. In an affidavit which the plaintiff swore in 1990 in the defendant’s divorce proceedings she described in detail the substantial amount of renovation work that was needed for the property. She also said that the defendant did the major portion of the renovations himself. There is no doubt that this was with the assistance of the plaintiff as she describes the houses they both worked on the project together. I think it likely that at this stage both parties contributed to the renovation work. I note that the contributions paid by the defendant to the renovations amounted to 8,131 pounds. He also paid the loan repayments through his employment package of 4,428 pounds and interest of 8,550 pounds.

38 Lincoln Street, Stanmore

51 This property was purchased while the plaintiff was still in England and, during the three months until she returned to Australia, the defendant carried out substantial alterations to the property. The defendant also described the work that he did in the continuing renovations which went on up until the house was sold in 1994. It is clear from the very detailed description of the work claimed to have been done by each of the parties that in fact some of the work was done by contractors. However, it is also clear that both parties did work on the renovations over the period they owned the house. It seems to me, after considering the detail of the descriptions of the work carried out by each of the parties, that they were both involved, with the defendant probably doing somewhat more than the plaintiff. This is corroborated by the plaintiff’s affidavit in the defendant’s divorce proceedings. Part of the time the plaintiff would have had difficulty as a result of the injuries she sustained when she walked through the plate glass window. No doubt the increase in price obtained for the Stanmore property was partly as a result of the passage of time but also because of the renovations which were fairly substantial.

52 The defendant claimed that he spent $69,343 in restoring the house. He gave very detailed evidence of the items spent and the plaintiff only disputed one or two items of a relatively small amount. I am satisfied that the defendant expended these monies except for $2,892.09 on the renovations to the property the plaintiff having expended $2,892.09.

44 Barren Crescent, Hunters Hill

53 The parties moved to Hunters Hill and, in anticipation of purchasing the property, they carried out various renovations to the property. The value of these renovations was lost to them as the purchase did not proceed. Such work that was done there did not contribute to the parties’ property.

69 Henry Street, Five Dock

54 This property was owned for a year and was sold at a slight loss. The property does not appear to have been the subject of renovation work by the parties.

Jaspers Brush property

55 The parties were living at Jaspers Brush for some four years and it is clear that there was a lot of renovation work done to the house on the property in which they both assisted. There was also work done on the milk room which was converted into a bedroom. Having regard to the nature of the work and the description given by the parties it seems clear to me that the majority of the heavy work was done by the defendant while the plaintiff assisted with a great deal of the work. This is not surprising given that she was only working on a part-time basis. The cost of contractors and purchased items in respect of the improvements, which were paid for by the defendant, came to $39,178.45. He also spent $35,250 on cattle, tractor and equipment. In respect of this sum the plaintiff, of course, contributed with the proceeds from the sale of her Pajero vehicle.

Minnamurra property

56 There were two houses on this property. One house fronted the road and was occupied by a permanent tenant for most of the time of the parties’ relationship. The other cottage was at the beach front and comprised a granny flat and the rest of the building. The granny flat was frequently tenanted. The plaintiff gave evidence that she purchased an oven for the property, a fridge, beds, lounge suite and made curtains for the second and third bedrooms. Although admitting that an oven was purchased, the defendant denied that any other furniture was purchased although he did agree that the plaintiff purchased the vacuum cleaner. On the plaintiff’s evidence there were other household items which were purchased by her.

57 The plaintiff gave evidence of cleaning out the granny flat when the tenant was away and painting it on several occasions. I accept this evidence and note that there was minor maintenance to the garden and the property carried out by the plaintiff.

58 The house was used as a weekender and it will be recalled that it was owned by the defendant and his former wife. It had been purchased by them in 1980 for $55,000. In January 1990 the defendant purchased his wife’s interest in the property and paid $163,000 for a half interest. This would fix its value at that stage at $326,000.

Consideration of the application

59 The plaintiff’s submission was that she should be entitled to an order giving her between 40 percent and 45 percent of all the assets of the parties presently held by them. She submitted that it was appropriate to adopt a global approach to the matter.

60 The defendant for his part suggested that an appropriate order would deal only with the Jaspers Brush property and equipment and that an order should be made for payment to the plaintiff of between 25 percent and 30 percent of those assets with a deduction made for the $20,000 paid on account. At the conclusion of the hearing before me the defendant agreed to make a payment of $170,000 on account within seven days as he clearly conceded by his submissions that at least $190,061 should be paid to the plaintiff. The defendant submitted that the Minnamura property should be quarantined and thus excluded from the assets being considered by the court for adjustment.

61 In Norbis v Norbis (1985-1986 ) 161 CLR 513 at 523 the High Court said the following:-

“Although it is natural to assess financial contributions under s79 (4)(a) by reference to individual assets, it is also natural to assess the contribution of a spouse as homemaker and parent either by reference to the whole of the parties' property or to some part of that property. For ease of comparison and calculation it will be convenient in assessing the overall contributions of the parties at some stage to place the two types of contribution on the same basis, i.e. on a global or, alternatively, on an "asset-by-asset" basis. Which of the two approaches is the more convenient will depend on the circumstances of the particular case. However, there is much to be said for the view that in most cases the global approach is the more convenient. It follows that the Full Court is quite entitled to prescribe that approach as a guideline in order to promote uniformity of approach within the Court. In saying this we are not to be understood as denying the legitimacy of the trial judge's ascertainment in the first instance of the financial contributions of the parties by reference to particular assets. It is difficult to conceive how the trial judge in many cases could otherwise take account of such contributions as he is required to by s.79 (4)(a) of the Act . In this respect we agree with the comment of Nygh J. in G and G that, although mathematical precision is certainly not required, there is ordinarily a need to know the circumstances in which assets were acquired and the general extent of each party's contribution to them.”

62 It is thje circumstances of the particular case that will decide what is most appropriate.

63 The submissions of the defendant suggested an exclusion or quarantine of Minnamura as there was no financial contribution to the property by the plaintiff. The original purchase was before the relationship between the present parties commenced. The defendant supplied the cash and the mortgage to buy out his wife and he repaid the mortgage over time. The other matters relied upon to suggest that the property should be quarantined was the somewhat minimal work done to the property. It was nothing more than maintenance from time to time and some cleaning up after tenants or during tenancies.

64 Having regard to the fact that the plaintiff made no financial contribution to this property which the defendant had owned for many years, prior to the relationship, jointly with his wife, it seems to me inappropriate to include this in the joint pool of assets to be considered for the purposes of striking a figure for adjustment. However, it is appropriate to note and take into account in the final adjustment the fact that the plaintiff did some work cleaning up after tenants on a few occasions and assisted with some gardening work on that property. To do otherwise would be to create a basic pool of assets which is unrelated to the parties’ endeavours over the period of the relationship. All the other properties were ones which both parties contributed to or did substantial renovation work in one way or another.

65 It is apparent that the reason why the defendant included the plaintiff on the title to the first property purchased in the United Kingdom was because of the obligation he felt to her in having disrupted her life up until that time. There was an unequal distribution of the proceeds of sale of that property with the plaintiff receiving 45 percent rather than 10 percent in accordance with her then interest. However, this is not of great moment because with the proceeds of the sale a property was purchased by the plaintiff, held for a time, sold and the proceeds were brought back into the parties’ joint endeavours. The plaintiff did receive the rent in respect of that property but it seems from her description of the difficulties with tenants that it was not a successful investment in that regard.

66 I have already noted that on the purchase of Five Dock the plaintiff contributed more than her 10 percent shown on the title.

67 Major renovation works were carried out to the property at Long Ditton in London. It was realised at a profit and so was Stanmore. Stanmore was a successful effort on the part of both parties to renovate and sell at a profit. As I have indicated earlier in these reasons I consider that both parties worked hard towards these renovations with the defendant doing the major share. It is the work by both of them that has resulted in the present pool of assets that they now have. Some other work later in the relationship namely on the property at Hunters Hill and Jaspers Brush did not produce as great a profit.

68 I have earlier indicated there is some balance in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the homemaking contributions although as I have noted in this case they are not as substantial as often happens when parties have the care of children.

69 In the circumstances I think it is appropriate, having taken all factors into account, that the plaintiff should have an adjustment payment of about 30 percent of the pool of assets excluding those assets which have resulted from the sale of the Minnamurra property. Allowing each party to retain property in their possession this would result in a payment by the defendant to the plaintiff which I will round off to $225,000. There should be credit for the amounts of $20,000 and $170,000 already paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.

70 I will hear argument on costs and the parties should bring in short minutes to reflect these reasons which should provide for the transfer of the plaintiff’s interest in Jasper’s Brush to the defendant and each party to retain personal assets and property in their present possession.

*****

Last Modified: 09/09/2003