CL v JMG - [2007] QSC 169

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

CL v JMG [2007] QSC 169

PARTIES:

CL

(plaintiff)

AND

JMG

(defendant)

FILE NO:

6969 of 2004

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

28 May 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

12, 13, 14 February 2007

JUDGE:

Atkinson J

ORDER:

The property is to be distributed 30 per cent to the plaintiff and 70 per cent to the defendant.

The defendant is to pay the plaintiff $1,137,741.

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS - ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS - PARTICULAR CASES - whether failure to disclose all financial resources impacts on the proper distribution of property.

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS - ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS - PARTICULAR CASES - whether the defendant's father had loaned money to the defendant.

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS - ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS - PARTICULAR CASES - whether a substantial disparity in financial contributions at the commencement of the relationship affects the just and equitable distribution of property over a lengthy relationship.

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS - ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS - PARTICULAR CASES - determination of the duration of a de facto relationship.

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 32DA.

Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) s 260, s 261, s 263, s 283,
s 286, s 287, s 289, s 291, s 292, s 293, s 296, s 297, s 298,
s 300, s 303, s 304, s 305, s 306, s 307, s 309, s 337, s 343.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cwth) s 75(2), s 79.

FO v HAF [2006] QCA 555, considered
In the Marriage of Clauson (1995) 18 Fam LR 693, considered
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513, followed
Pierce v Pierce (1999) FLC 92-844, cited

Whiterod v Taylor (2006) FLC 93-266, cited

COUNSEL:

PJ Baston for the applicant

TD North for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Canning Cramer for the applicant

Hopgood Ganim for the respondent.

This was an application under Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (PLA) for a just and equitable property distribution at the end of a de facto relationship between the plaintiff CL and the defendant JMG.[1] Part 19 of the PLA was enacted as a result of recommendations made by the Queensland Law Reform Commission in its 1993 De Facto Relationships Report No. 44. The Commission recommended that eligible de facto partners should have, as far as is practicable, the same property rights and responsibilities as married partners on the dissolution of their relationship.[2]
[1]Initials have been used to identify the parties and various witness and entities because of the prohibition found in PLA s343.
[2]De Facto Relationships Report No. 44 p 53.

The de facto relationship

Ms L is 53 years old and JMG, 49. There was no dispute that they were in a de facto relationship. However there was a dispute as to the duration of the relationship.…

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 CL v JMG

Details

AGLC: CL v JMG [2007] QSC 169
Case: [2007] QSC 169
Decision Date: 28 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of CL v JMG involved a dispute between the parties over the division of property following the termination of their de facto relationship. The primary focus was on whether the plaintiff’s failure to disclose all her financial resources during the relationship should affect the equitable distribution of property. Another point of contention was whether the defendant had received a substantial loan from his father, and if so, whether this influenced the distribution of assets. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia, where the court was tasked with determining the just and equitable distribution of the couple's property in light of these issues.

The legal issues the court needed to resolve included the impact of undisclosed financial resources on the property division, the effect of a significant loan received by the defendant from his father, and the relevance of the financial contributions made at the beginning of the relationship in the context of a lengthy de facto partnership. The court also had to consider the duration of the de facto relationship for the purpose of determining the property distribution. These issues were examined in light of relevant statutes such as the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), and the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwth), as well as relevant case law.

The court found that the plaintiff's failure to disclose all her financial resources did not impact the just and equitable distribution of property. It was determined that the loan received by the defendant from his father did not significantly influence the overall financial position of the parties. Furthermore, the court considered the substantial disparity in financial contributions at the beginning of the relationship but concluded that it did not necessitate a disproportionate property distribution. After assessing the evidence and applying the relevant legal principles, the court decided that the property should be divided 30% to the plaintiff and 70% to the defendant, and that the defendant should pay the plaintiff $1,137,741.

In conclusion, the court’s decision hinged on a comprehensive assessment of the financial circumstances of the parties, the contributions made during the relationship, and the overall fairness of the property division. The court ordered that the property be divided 30% to the plaintiff and 70% to the defendant, with the defendant required to pay the plaintiff $1,137,741. This outcome reflects the court's application of the statutory framework and relevant case law to the specific circumstances of this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

The property is to be distributed 30 per cent to the plaintiff and 70 per cent to the defendant.

The defendant is to pay the plaintiff $1,137,741.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	CL v JMG [2007] QSC 169
PARTIES:	CL (plaintiff) AND JMG (defendant)
FILE NO:	6969 of 2004
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court
DELIVERED ON:	28 May 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	12, 13, 14 February 2007
JUDGE:	Atkinson J
ORDER:	The property is to be distributed 30 per cent to the plaintiff and 70 per cent to the defendant. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff $1,137,741.
CATCHWORDS:	FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS - ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS - PARTICULAR CASES - whether failure to disclose all financial resources impacts on the proper distribution of property. FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS - ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS - PARTICULAR CASES - whether the defendant's father had loaned money to the defendant. FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS - ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS - PARTICULAR CASES - whether a substantial disparity in financial contributions at the commencement of the relationship affects the just and equitable distribution of property over a lengthy relationship. FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS - ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS - PARTICULAR CASES - determination of the duration of a de facto relationship. Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 32DA. Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) s 260, s 261, s 263, s 283, s 286, s 287, s 289, s 291, s 292, s 293, s 296, s 297, s 298, s 300, s 303, s 304, s 305, s 306, s 307, s 309, s 337, s 343. Family Law Act 1975 (Cwth) s 75(2), s 79. FO v HAF [2006] QCA 555, considered In the Marriage of Clauson (1995) 18 Fam LR 693, considered Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513, followed Pierce v Pierce (1999) FLC 92-844, cited Whiterod v Taylor (2006) FLC 93-266, cited
COUNSEL:	PJ Baston for the applicant TD North for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Canning Cramer for the applicant Hopgood Ganim for the respondent.