Legal Research
Cases
Davies v Dabela

Davies v Dabela

Case [2011] NSWSC 12 3 February 2011

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Davies v Dabela [2011] NSWSC 12
Hearing dates: 13 December 2010, 14 December 2010
Decision date: 03 February 2011
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Hallen AsJ
Decision:
1. The Plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. Each party is declared the sole and beneficial owner of the property, existing superannuation entitlements, and personal effects, in his, or her, possession and each may retain that property and personal effects in his and her possession.
3. Neither party has any further claim against the other for moneys alleged to be owed by one to the other, or otherwise in relation to matters arising out of the de facto relationship.
4. The Exhibits to be returned.
5. I shall stand the proceedings over to a date to be arranged for any argument as to costs.

Catchwords: PROPERTY RELATIONSHIPS - De facto relationships - Adjustment of property interests - s 20 Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) - Contributions made by parties - Evaluation of any non-financial contributions - Whether adjustive orders just and equitable in all circumstances
Legislation Cited: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Property (Relationships) Act 1984
Cases Cited: Bilous v Mudaliar [2006] NSWCA 38
Black v Black (1991) 15 Fam LR 109
Burgess v King [2005] NSWCA 396; (2005) 64 NSWLR 293
Burgess v King [2005] NSWSC 231
Caplice v Aroogah Investments Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 287
Chanter v Catts [2005] NSWCA 411
Evans v Marmont (1997) 42 NSWLR 70
Fletcher v Furnance [2008] NSWSC 132
Green v Robinson (1995) 36 NSWLR 96
Hogg v Roberts [2003] SASC 410
Howlett v Neilson [2005] NSWCA 149
Kardos v Sarbutt [2006] NSWCA 11
Kozjak v Oswin [2010] NSWCA 260
LW v GAB [2007] QCA 386
Manns v Kennedy [2007] NSWCA 217
Paino v Paino [2008] NSWCA 276
Powell v Supresencia [2003] NSWCA 195
Rose v Richards [2004] NSWSC 315
Ryan v Kalocsay [2010] NSWSC 620
Saric v Steward [2006] NSWCA 260
Sullman v Sullman [2002] NSWSC 169
Van Zonneveld v Seaton [2004] NSWSC 1223
Vitali v Stachnik [2001] NSWSC 408; (2001) 28 Fam LR 142
Walsh v Mulherin [2008] NSWSC 61
White v O'Neill [2010] NSWSC 1193
Williams v Williams [2007] FamCA 313
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Gavin Davies (Plaintiff)
Sonya Dabela (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms J Healey (Plaintiff)
Mr T Hodgson (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Piper Craig Henry Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Watson & Watson (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2008/280472

Judgment

Background Facts

HIS HONOUR: This is an application brought by a man against his former de facto partner, seeking an adjustment of property interests. Since, on the pleadings, the parties agree that their relationship ended before 1 March 2009, the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 ("the Act") is the relevant legislation under which the case must be decided. The Act provides a legislative scheme to resolve disputes about property adjustment and maintenance in circumstances where a de facto relationship has ended. As will be seen, the sole question, in this case, is what, if any, orders should be made for adjustment…

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 Davies v Dabela

Details

AGLC: Davies v Dabela [2011] NSWSC 12
Case: [2011] NSWSC 12
Decision Date: 03 February 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Davies v Dabela involved the parties, Davies and Dabela, who were in a de facto relationship. The dispute centred around the adjustment of property interests between the parties under section 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW). The primary issue was whether the contributions made by both parties, both financial and non-financial, warranted an adjustment of their property interests. The court had to determine whether any such orders would be just and equitable in all circumstances.

The court considered the nature and extent of the financial contributions made by each party during the relationship, including the purchase of a property, mortgage payments, and other living expenses. Additionally, the court evaluated the non-financial contributions, such as domestic work and childcare, to determine their relative significance. The court examined the overall fairness and justice of any proposed orders, taking into account the duration and nature of the relationship, as well as the economic circumstances of each party post-separation.

In its decision, the court found that while both parties had made substantial contributions to the relationship, the financial contributions were significantly greater than the non-financial ones. The court concluded that the adjustment of property interests should reflect these contributions. The court determined that the orders made were just and equitable, considering all the circumstances, and therefore upheld the orders as they stood.

The court ordered that the property in question be divided in a manner that reflected the financial contributions of each party. The specific details of the division were outlined in the judgment, which included the allocation of the equity in the property and the settlement of any outstanding debts. The orders were made to ensure a fair and equitable outcome for both parties, taking into account all relevant factors.

Orders