Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Cooper v Mulcahy Mulcahy v Cooper [2013] NSWCA 160 Hearing dates: 4 December 201211 April 2013 Decision date: 14 June 2013 Before: Basten JA at [1]
Meagher JA at [2]
Hoeben JA at [3]Decision: (1) Appeal allowed.
(2) A declaration that the pool of assets for distribution between the parties is $1,405,782.
(3) A declaration that each of the respondent's claims for damages for assault and/or battery as found by the primary judge is statute barred, save for the 2007 assault.
(4) Quash the judgment in favour of the respondent on her cross-claim.
(5) Enter judgment for the respondent on her cross-claim against the appellant in the amount of $4,000.
(6) The respondent is to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and of the cross-appeal and to have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act 1951 if qualified.
(7) The parties are to advise the Court within seven days of the date of judgment as to whether they have been able to agree as to the costs of the trial.
(8) Direct that if the parties are unable to agree as to the costs of the trial:
(a) Within seven days of the date of this judgment, the appellant lodge with the Court a submission identifying the costs order which he contends should be made, such submissions not to exceed two folios.
(b) Within seven days thereafter the respondent is to lodge a reply, not to exceed two folios.
(c) Within a further seven days, the appellant lodge any submission in reply to that of the respondent, not to exceed one folio.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) - Appeal against "add back" of monies into "asset pool" - cross-appeal against trial judge's refusal to order payment forthwith of the value of share of property after adjustment - contention that judgment in favour of respondent be affirmed on grounds other than those relied upon by trial judge - whether order for adjustment of property should be increased in respondent's favour - TORT - assaults and batteries during relationship - whether entitlement to damages - quantum of damages - whether entitlement to aggravated damages - whether capacity to manage home reduced by effects of assaults and batteries - LIMITATION - application of s52 of the Limitation Act 1969 - whether respondent subject to a relevant "disability" under section - whether assaults and batteries barred by Limitation Act - conflicting opinions of psychiatrists who gave evidence - whether conflict in medical material properly resolved - DAMAGES - whether evidentiary basis for…
Continue reading Cooper v Mulcahy
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Cooper v Mulcahy [2013] NSWCA 160
- Case
- [2013] NSWCA 160
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the respondent's claims for damages for assault and battery were barred by section 52 of the *Limitation Act 1969* (NSW), considering the appellant's alleged "disability" and conflicting medical evidence regarding the respondent's capacity. The court also had to determine the appropriate quantum of damages for the assaults and batteries, including whether aggravated damages were warranted, and to assess the evidentiary basis for awards of economic loss and out-of-pocket expenses. Furthermore, the court was required to consider whether the asset pool should be adjusted to reflect the damages and whether the respondent was entitled to an immediate payment of her share of the property.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that most of the respondent's claims for damages for assault and battery were statute-barred under section 52 of the *Limitation Act 1969*, with the exception of an assault that occurred in 2007. The court quashed the judgment in favour of the respondent on her cross-claim, which had sought immediate payment of her property share. Instead, the court declared the total asset pool for distribution to be $1,405,782 and entered judgment for the respondent on her cross-claim in the amount of $4,000. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal allowed.
(2) A declaration that the pool of assets for distribution between the parties is $1,405,782.
(3) A declaration that each of the respondent's claims for damages for assault and/or battery as found by the primary judge is statute barred, save for the 2007 assault.
(4) Quash the judgment in favour of the respondent on her cross-claim.
(5) Enter judgment for the respondent on her cross-claim against the appellant in the amount of $4,000.
(6) The respondent is to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and of the cross-appeal and to have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act 1951 if qualified.
(7) The parties are to advise the Court within seven days of the date of judgment as to whether they have been able to agree as to the costs of the trial.
(8) Direct that if the parties are unable to agree as to the costs of the trial:
(a) Within seven days of the date of this judgment, the appellant lodge with the Court a submission identifying the costs order which he contends should be made, such submissions not to exceed two folios.
(b) Within seven days thereafter the respondent is to lodge a reply, not to exceed two folios.
(c) Within a further seven days, the appellant lodge any submission in reply to that of the respondent, not to exceed one folio.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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.