Legal Research
Cases
Crellin v Robertson

Crellin v Robertson

Case [2004] ACTSC 92 22 September 2004

Domestic Relationship

Type to search within this case.

JACQUELINE NORMA CRELLIN v JENNIFER MAREE ROBERTSON [2004] ACTSC 92 (22 September 2004)

FAMILY LAW – domestic relationship – application for order adjusting interests in property – effect of post-separation agreement – reliance - failure to consider superannuation - financial and non-financial contributions – whether appropriate to take into account current values of assets notwithstanding earlier division – whether just and equitable to order further payment.

Domestic Relationships Act 1994 (ACT), ss 3, 15, 19, 33,
De Facto Relationships Act1984 (NSW), s 20
Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW), s 20
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 79

Ferris v Winslade [1998] ACTSC 18
Evans v Marmont (1997) 21 Fam LR 760
Pigott v Walker [2002] ACTSC 40
Davey v Lee (1990) 13 Fam LR 688
Harris v Harris (1991) FLC 92-254
Foster v Evans (unreported) NSWSC 31 October 1997
Nguyen v Scheiff [2002] NSWSC 151
Dridi v Fillmore [2001] NSWSC 319
Jones v Grech [2001] NSWCA 208
Griffiths v Brodigan (1995) 20 Fam LR 822
Fuller v Taaffe (1997) 23 Fam LR 702
McDonald v Stelzer [2000] NSWCA 302
Harrison v Harrison (1996) 129 FLR 74

No. SC 34 of 2001

Judge: Crispin J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 22 September 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )
  )  No. SC 34 of 2001
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

BETWEEN:JACQUELINE NORMA CRELLIN
Plaintiff

AND:JENNIFER MAREE ROBERTSON
Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Crispin J
Date:  22 September 2004
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

there be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $17,750.

This is a claim for a property order under s 15 of the Domestic Relationships Act 1994 (ACT) (“the Act”).

The parties commenced a lesbian relationship on or about 18 April 1986 and commenced cohabitation later that year. The plaintiff was then 23 years of age and was a private in the Australian Army. The defendant was then 30 years of age and was an Air Force officer. The relationship subsisted until early 1999 and throughout that period the parties generally pooled their incomes and shared their assets.

They initially lived in rented accommodation in Canberra. The plaintiff resigned from the Army in 1987 because she had been faced with the prospect of being posted to Sydney and wished to remain in Canberra with the defendant. She then obtained employment with the Australian Protective Service.

In about September 1987 the defendant purchased a property at 185 Wheeler Crescent, Wanniassa in the ACT and the parties resided at that address from the time of purchase until 1989 when the defendant was posted to the RAAF base Williamtown near Newcastle in NSW. They then lived together in rented accommodation at “Lemon Tree Passage” until the defendant was again posted to the RAAF base Fairbairn whereupon they moved back into the house in Wanniassa.

Whilst in Williamtown the plaintiff had resumed nursing studies that she had commenced earlier but abandoned. She completed her studies in 1992 and obtained an advanced certificate in enrolled nursing. After returning to…

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 Crellin v Robertson

Details

AGLC: Crellin v Robertson [2004] ACTSC 92
Case: [2004] ACTSC 92
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Crellin v Robertson involved a claim for a property order under the Domestic Relationships Act 1994 (ACT). The plaintiff, Jacqueline Crellin, and the defendant, Jennifer Robertson, had been in a domestic relationship for approximately 13 years, during which they pooled their incomes and shared their assets. The relationship ended in 1999, and the plaintiff sought a readjustment of the property interests between the parties. The primary legal issues revolved around the effect of a post-separation agreement, whether it was appropriate to consider superannuation contributions, and whether it was just and equitable to order a further payment. The court considered the nature and duration of the relationship, the financial and non-financial contributions of both parties, and the contributions made to the welfare of any children. It was determined that while the post-separation agreement was not binding, it could be taken into account. The court found that the defendant had made a significantly greater financial contribution, and the plaintiff's non-financial contributions, while important, did not outweigh this disparity. The court also concluded that it was appropriate to consider the disparity in superannuation entitlements, albeit with some hesitation. Ultimately, the court ordered the plaintiff to receive an additional sum of $17,750, which included interest on the amount that would have been due had the agreement been adjusted to account for the disparity in superannuation entitlements.

Orders