Bull v Selmore - [2004] NSWSC 1059

Reported Decision:
(2004) DFC 95-302

Supreme Court

CITATION: Bull v Selmore [2004] NSWSC 1059

HEARING DATE(S): 9, 10 November 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 December 2004

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Master Macready at 1

DECISION: Paragraph 81

CATCHWORDS: Family law - Property interests - Division of assets - Whether leave should be granted in application for adjustment of interests in property by de facto partners - Whether provision to be made for plaintiff's contribution to raising of child produced by relationship. - Held - Leave granted - Property at 27 Yirra Riad, Mount Colah be sold - Proceeds from sale should be split 40% to plaintiff and 60% to defendant.

PARTIES :
Christine Ann Bull v Trevor John Selmore

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5143 of 2002

COUNSEL: Mr P.G. Maiden for plaintiff
Miss L. Snelling for defendant

SOLICITORS: Truman Hoyle for plaintiff
Milne Berry & Berger for defendant

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

Master Macready

Friday 3 December 2004

5143 of 2002 Christine Ann Bull v Trevor John Selmore

JUDGMENT

1 Master: This is the hearing of a claim for adjustment of the parties’ property interests under s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW). The parties lived together in a de facto relationship from October 1978 until September 1986. There was one small break in the relationship for five months in 1979 but that is not of consequence. The parties had a child Jennifer who was born on 17 December 1978.

2 The claim as originally formulated was a claim under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) and a constructive trust claim. At the hearing the plaintiff did not proceed with the constructive claim and the hearing was conducted on that basis.

Family history

3 The defendant was born on 25 November 1939. The plaintiff was born on 1 October 1948. They first met in 1975.

4 On 16 July 1971 the defendant and his wife Julie Selmore purchased as joint tenants a property at 61 Bayview Avenue, Five Dock for $12,000.00 with a mortgage from the Rural Bank of New South Wales

5 On 22 July 1975 Julie Selmore’s interest in the property at Five Dock was transferred to the defendant pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court Family Law Division dated 4 July 1975.

6 From 1975 to December 1977 the plaintiff worked at Sundell Motors, Chatswood. In March 1978 the plaintiff became pregnant and in October of that year the plaintiff moved into defendant’s property at Five Dock and it is said the de facto relationship then commenced.

7 On 29 November 1978 the defendant purchased a property at Croydon from David Stevenson for $22,000.00 with a mortgage from the Bank of New South Wales for $10,000.00.

8 The parties’ child, Jennifer was born on 17 December 1978 and in March the following year the plaintiff and Jennifer moved to the plaintiff’s parents’ home. In August 1979 when the plaintiff and the defendant reconciled the plaintiff 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 Bull v Selmore

Details

AGLC: Bull v Selmore [2004] NSWSC 1059
Case: [2004] NSWSC 1059
Decision Date: 7 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bull v Selmore, the plaintiff sought an adjustment of the property interests in a house located at 27 Yirra Riad, Mount Colah, which was held jointly with the defendant. The plaintiff and defendant had been in a de facto relationship for several years and had a child together, but had since separated. The plaintiff sought a share of the property that reflected her contributions to the relationship and to raising their child. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether leave should be granted for the plaintiff's application for an adjustment of her property interests in the jointly held property. The court also had to consider whether provision should be made for the plaintiff's contribution to raising their child. The court considered the principles of equitable distribution of property between de facto partners and the relevant statutory provisions of the Family Law Act 1975.

The court found that the plaintiff had made significant contributions to the relationship and to raising their child, and that these contributions should be reflected in the division of property. The court considered the evidence of the parties' financial contributions, the duration of the relationship, and the age and needs of any children of the relationship. The court concluded that the appropriate course of action was to grant the plaintiff's application for an adjustment of property interests. The court ordered that the property be sold and the proceeds split between the parties in the ratio of 40% to the plaintiff and 60% to the defendant.

In summary, the court granted leave for the plaintiff's application and ordered that the jointly held property be sold and the proceeds split between the parties in the ratio of 40% to the plaintiff and 60% to the defendant. The court considered the relevant legal principles and the evidence of the parties' contributions to the relationship and to raising their child in reaching its decision.

Orders