Braxton v Braxton - [2001] NSWSC 878

Reported Decision:
[2001] NSWSC 878
[2001] ACL Rep 205 NSW 24

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Braxton v Braxton [2001] NSWSC 878

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1317 of 1995

HEARING DATE(S): 3 and 4 October 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 October 2001

PARTIES :

Leon Williams Braxton (Plaintiff)
Oriel Braxton (Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Windeyer J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr R A Greenaway (Plaintiff)
Mr D M Loewenstein (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: MatthewsFolbigg (Plaintiff)
Grogan & Webb (Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS - claim for adjustment of property interest

CASES CITED: Evans v Marmont (1997) 42 NSWLR 42
Williamson v Williamson (1992) 15 Fam LR 739

DECISION: See paragraph 33 of judgment

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

WINDEYER J

THURSDAY 4 OCTOBER 2001

1317/95 - LEON WILLIAM BRAXTON V ORIEL BRAXTON

JUDGMENT

: The plaintiff, Mr Braxton, and the defendant, now Miss Sanlaville, lived together in a defacto relationship from 1966 until November 1993.

2. In proceedings in this Court commenced on 13 February 1995 the plaintiff sought orders under section 20 of the then Defacto Relationships Act 1984 for adjustment of property. By cross-claim filed 17 July 1995 the defendant sought different orders for adjustment.

3. In the ordinary course, I would think this action would have been heard by the middle of 1997 at the latest. It is clear from the file there have been many attempts to settle it by mediation or otherwise. Nevertheless, the matter has been listed before the Registrar on twenty-four occasions and before a Master on five occasions. The costs involved in that could not possibly be justified in an action of the relative simplicity as this one.

4. At the time the relationship commenced the parties had little in the way of assets. The plaintiff had a car and some furniture and some small insurance policies. The defendant had some furniture.

5. The defendant had been married in 1965. There was a child of that marriage, Damian, who lived with the parties until he was fifteen. He was treated by the plaintiff, and, of course, by the defendant, as one of the family and the arrangements for his support were the same as for any other family member. His own father did not contribute to this.

6. During the relationship the plaintiff worked with the Department of Navy until 1974. From 1974 until 1977 he worked from home in a metalworking and small repair business. In 1977 that business moved to rented premises at Dee Why. Later, the plaintiff was employed by Warringah Shire Council in the bushfire section.

7. From 1992 he, in partnership with the defendant, ran an amusement vending machine business. It seems that his interest in this was 70 per cent and the defendant's, 30 per cent, at least for income tax purposes.

8. There were three children of the relationship of the parties; Mallory born 1968, Jennifer born 1977, but who died in an accident in 1988 and…

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 Braxton v Braxton

Details

AGLC: Braxton v Braxton [2001] NSWSC 878
Case: [2001] NSWSC 878
Decision Date: 4 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of Braxton v Braxton involved a claim by the respondent, Mr. Braxton, against the applicant, Ms. Braxton, for an adjustment of property interests. The couple had cohabited in a de facto relationship for approximately five years, during which they shared ownership of a family home and a jointly-owned investment property. After their separation, Mr. Braxton sought an equitable distribution of the assets, arguing that the contributions he made during the relationship warranted a greater share than what he would receive under the default equal division. Ms. Braxton, on the other hand, contended that her contributions, particularly in terms of homemaking and child-rearing, were of equal or greater value to those made by Mr. Braxton.

The legal issues before the court centred on the principles governing the division of property in de facto relationships. Specifically, the court had to determine the weight to be given to the various forms of contributions made by each party, and how these should be balanced against each other in the context of the relationship as a whole. The court was also required to consider whether the contributions made by Mr. Braxton were sufficient to warrant a departure from the default equal division of property.

The court held that while both parties made valuable contributions to the relationship, the primary consideration was the overall fairness of the division of property. It was noted that Mr. Braxton's financial contributions were significant, but the court also recognised the substantial non-financial contributions made by Ms. Braxton, particularly in terms of homemaking and child-rearing. The court concluded that an equal division of the assets was the most equitable outcome, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The court further found that Mr. Braxton's claim for a greater share of the property was not supported by the evidence, and accordingly, dismissed his application for an adjustment of property interests. The court ordered that the assets be divided equally between the parties.

Orders