Brzezowski v Seewoo - [2005] NSWSC 505

CITATION:
Brzezowski v Seewoo [2005] NSWSC 505

HEARING DATE(S): 23/05/2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

23 May 2005

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF:
Master Macready at 1

CATCHWORDS:
Family law application under Property (Relationships) Act 1984. No matter of principle.

PARTIES:
Rman Brzezowski v Marie Anne Seewoo

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 3309/2004

COUNSEL:
Mr Thistleton for defendant

SOLICITORS:
Watson Stafford for defendant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

- 1 -

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

MASTER MACREADY

MONDAY 23 MAY 2005

3309/04 - ROMAN BRZEZOWSKI v MARIE ANNE SEEWOO

JUDGMENT

1 MASTER: This is a hearing of a statement of claim and cross-claim between the parties in which the parties respectively seek an adjustment of property interests under section 20 of the Family Provision Act 1984.

2 The plaintiff has been given adequate notice of the hearing and has not appeared. This appears to be consistent with what the affidavits disclose as his attitude towards the proceedings over a period of time. I am quite satisfied on the information before me that he has had adequate notice of the hearing and orders that are to be sought by the defendant in the matter, particularly the minute of order to which I will later refer.

SHORT CHRONOLOGY

3 The defendant was born on 20 October 1949 and the plaintiff on 7 October 1958. The defendant herself was injured in a work accident in 1987, some years prior to the parties commencing to live together. The parties first commenced to live together on 15 December 1990 in accommodation which was rented by the defendant.

4 In December 1990 the defendant received a total of $112,000 compensation for a 1987 injury. As a result, in May 1991 the defendant purchased a property at 63 Tracey Street, Revesby for a cost of $175,000. The defendant contributed $85,000 from her compensation and the balance of $90,000 was borrowed. Both the plaintiff and the defendant were liable under that mortgage.

5 The defendant managed the parties’ finances, which were pooled, and the plaintiff thereafter took about $70 per week for his personal expenses. In 1995 the defendant received a sum of $10,962 by way of superannuation and used it to make renovations to the home. In 1997 the plaintiff took out a personal loan to buy a car. In 1998 the mortgage had been reduced by the combined earnings of the parties down to $52,250.

6 According to the defendant’s evidence, which I accept, the relationship finished in March 1998.

7 On 20 August 1998 the plaintiff was injured at work. This prevented him from further working, although the defendant, herself, continued to work. There was payment of child support by the plaintiff for a while, but that ceased in 1999.

8 Commencing at this time the defendant’s daughter started supporting her mother, giving her upwards of $10,000 to continue with the expenses of maintaining the house. In February 2001 the plaintiff received a compensation payout and his superannuation entitlements. Those funds were used by him to…

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 Brzezowski v Seewoo

Details

AGLC: Brzezowski v Seewoo [2005] NSWSC 505
Case: [2005] NSWSC 505
Decision Date: 23 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brzezowski v Seewoo is a case concerning an application under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984, which was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The applicants, Mr. Brzezowski and Ms. Seewoo, who were in a de facto relationship, sought to resolve disputes regarding the division of their property. They had been in a relationship for over two decades, during which time they accumulated various assets, including a house, personal belongings, and superannuation funds. Following their separation, disagreements arose over the equitable distribution of these assets.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the relationship between the parties qualified as a de facto relationship under the Act and, if so, what factors should be considered in dividing the property. The court had to consider the duration of the relationship, the nature of the financial contributions made by each party, and any other relevant factors that might impact the equitable distribution of the property. The court also needed to determine the appropriate weight to give to the various factors in light of the particular circumstances of the case.

The court found that the relationship did indeed qualify as a de facto relationship, and it proceeded to consider the various factors in dividing the property. The court recognised the long duration of the relationship as a significant factor and also considered the financial and non-financial contributions made by each party. The court concluded that the parties had made substantial contributions to the relationship, and it sought to distribute the property in a manner that reflected these contributions. The court found that an equal division of the property would be appropriate, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case. The court emphasised that the division of property in de facto relationships should be based on the principle of fairness and equity, rather than a strict adherence to any particular formula.

The court's final orders were that the parties' property be divided equally, with each party receiving 50% of the total assets. The court also made orders regarding the payment of certain debts and the transfer of ownership of specific items of property. The court emphasised that its decision was based on the particular facts and circumstances of the case, and it cautioned against the use of the decision as a precedent for other cases with different facts.

Orders