CJR v BMS

[2010] QSC 16

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

CJR v BMS [2010] QSC 16

PARTIES:

CJR
(applicant)
v
BMS
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

5787 of 2008

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 February 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 December 2009

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

1.   The applicant is to bring in minutes of order.

CATCHWORDS:

DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Where applicant and respondent in a de facto relationship for six years – Where parties had one child together – Where applicant has 3 other children – Where respondent owned real estate prior to relationship commencing – Where both parties made financial and other contributions during course of relationship – Where both parties dispute the extent of the other party’s financial and other contributions – Where ownership and value of certain property is in dispute - Whether the parties contributed equally during the course of the relationship – Whether a property adjustment order should be made.

BLM v RWS [2006] QCA 528
FO v HAF [2006] QCA 555
Hardman v Hobman [2003] QCA 467

Property Law Act 1974, ss 286, 291, 292, 293, 297, 298, 299, 341

COUNSEL:

AC Black for the applicant
Respondent appeared unrepresented

SOLICITORS:

Hemming & Hart solicitors for the applicant
Respondent appeared unrepresented

[1] The applicant (“CJR”) and the respondent (“BMS”) lived together in a de facto relationship from March 2000 until final separation on 26 June 2006. BMS now seeks a property adjustment order under s 286 of the Property Law Act 1974 (“PLA”). The pool of property to be considered is relatively small. There is one child of the relationship who was born on 11 December 2000. The applicant had three children from previous relationships, one of whom was treated as a child of the relationship. A parenting order was made in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia on 1 August 2008.

[2]      CJR is now 45 years old. BMS is 35 years old. Neither has entered into a new relationship.

[3]      The appropriate method to use when determining an application of this nature was laid down by the Court of Appeal in FO v HAF [2006] QCA 555. The process outlined by Keane JA at [52] is:

(a)        Identify and value the property, resources and liabilities of the parties;

(b) Identify and assess the contributions of the parties to their pool of assets and determine their contribution-based entitlements in accordance with s 291 to s 295 of the PLA;

(c) Identify and assess the factors in s 297 to s 309 of the PLA to determine the adjustment to the contribution-based entitlement; and

(d) Consider the result of these earlier steps to determine whether that result is just and equitable in accordance with s 286 of the PLA.

Identification and valuation of the property etc.

[4]      A table of assets and liabilities was prepared on behalf of the applicant. Save for the question of jewellery, with which I will deal…