Chippindale v Wyatt - [2010] NSWSC 927

CITATION: Chippindale v Wyatt [2010] NSWSC 927
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 18/05/10, 19/05/10, 20/05/10, 28/06/10
(Final submissions 12/08/10)

JUDGMENT DATE :
30 September 2010

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Macready AsJ at 1

DECISION: I dismiss the proceedings with costs.

CATCHWORDS: Family Law. Application under Property (Relationships) Act 1984 for adjustment of parties' property interests. Held there was no de facto relationship. In the circumstances other claims for relief not substantiated. Proceedings dismissed.

PARTIES: Peter Chippindale v Rebecca Ann Wyatt

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/290226

COUNSEL: Mr Peter Chippindale appeared in person
Mr MW Anderson for defendant

SOLICITORS:
Tonkin Drysdale Partners for defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MACREADY

THURSDAY 30 SEPTEMBER 2010

2009/290226 (formerly 4248/09) Peter Chippindale v Rebecca Ann Wyatt

JUDGMENT

This is the hearing of proceedings brought by the plaintiff, Mr Peter Chippindale, in respect of the following claims:

a. An application for adjustment of the parties’ interests under the s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) (the Act).

b. A claim for unjust enrichment as a result of work done by Mr Chippindale on the property owned in part by the defendant, Ms Rebecca Wyatt.

Application for adjustment of parties’ interests under s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act

2 In respect of this application the parties are at issue as to whether there was a de facto relationship between them. It is plain that they had contact over the period from 2001 to 2008 and this included the period when Mr Chippindale was a builder by trade and worked for Ms Wyatt and her husband, Mr John Maddigan, on their property at Baulkham Hills.

3 Mr Chippindale was born in 1955. Prior to the events concerned with this case he was married and had four children.

4 Ms Wyatt was born in 1969. In 1993 she met Mr Maddigan and they married in 1996.

5 Mr Maddigan was discharged from the Air Force in 1999.

6 Ms Wyatt and Mr Maddigan purchased a property at Baulkham Hills as joint tenants in September 2000.

7 In late 2000 or early 2001 Ms Wyatt first met Mr Chippindale at the Birkenhead Point Marina where she was working. He had a boat moored at the Marina.

8 In 2000 and 2001 Ms Wyatt and Mr Maddigan obtained a development consent and an owner builder permit to undertake renovations to their property at Baulkham Hills.

9 In 2001 Mr Maddigan re-entered the Air Force where he is currently employed.

10 After some alterations to the building plans, renovation work started in 2003. From time to time Mr Chippindale helped with the major building works and stayed at the home at Baulkham Hills.

11 Ms Wyatt suggests that she and Mr Maddigan paid Mr Chippindale $45,097.17 during this period for…

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 Chippindale v Wyatt

Details

AGLC: Chippindale v Wyatt [2010] NSWSC 927
Case: [2010] NSWSC 927
Decision Date: 30 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chippindale v Wyatt involved the plaintiff, Chippindale, seeking an adjustment of property interests under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984, following the cessation of a relationship with the defendant, Wyatt. The dispute centred on whether the parties had been in a de facto relationship and, if so, whether the court should exercise its powers to make an order for the adjustment of their property interests. The proceedings were heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine whether a de facto relationship existed between the parties. If such a relationship was established, the court would then consider whether it was just and equitable to make an order for the adjustment of property interests. The court also needed to assess whether the plaintiff was entitled to any other forms of relief under the Act.

The court found that no de facto relationship existed between the parties, based on the evidence and the nature of their interactions. Given this determination, the court held that the other claims for relief, such as spousal maintenance or child support, were not substantiated. Consequently, the proceedings were dismissed.

The court issued an order dismissing the plaintiff's application for the adjustment of property interests under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984. No further orders were made in favour of the plaintiff.

Orders