Deans v Jones - [2003] NTSC 117

Deans v Jones [2003] NTSC 117
PARTIES:DEANS, Peter Noel

v
JONES, Jennifer Phyllis

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FILE NO:96 of 1999 (9916569)
DELIVERED:  3 December 2003
HEARING DATES:  19 November 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  MILDREN J
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:J Waters QC
Respondent:  S Gearin
Solicitors:
Appellant:D Francis and Associates
Respondent:  D Elliott
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:
Number of pages:  11

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Deans v Jones [2003] NTSC 117

No. 96 of 1999 (9916569)
BETWEEN:

PETER NOEL DEANS

Appellant

AND:

JENNIFER PHYLLIS JONES

Respondent

CORAM: MILDREN J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 3 December 2003)

This is an appeal from the Master pursuant to s 31 of the Supreme Court Act.
The respondent brought proceedings under s 18 of the De Facto Relationships Act for an order adjusting the property interests of the parties.
The learned Master decided that the respondent plaintiff would be fairly compensated if a property adjustment in the sum of $45,000 inclusive of interest was made in her favour. The defendant has appealed against that decision on a number of grounds. It is necessary only to deal with three of those grounds, namely grounds 5, 6 and 7 which are in the following terms:
“The learned Master erred in law:
5.In awarding unspecified interest on an unspecified amount for unspecified period (sic) without statutory authority
6.In failing to make any findings as to the extent of the asset pools at the beginning and at the end of the relationship in order to determine from what assets the respondent’s award was to be made.
7.In failing to make findings as to the actual contribution in money or percentage terms such that the Learned Master’s findings would have been capable of review.”

Findings by the Master

Before dealing with the grounds of appeal it is necessary to briefly refer to some of the findings and fact. The learned Master found that the parties commenced a de facto relationship near the end of 1992. At first they lived together at Pandanus Farm, near Katherine, a property owned by the appellant. The respondent was in employment at the time and she remained in employment for the most part until the de facto relationship ended. The learned Master found that the relationship ended in December 1998. It is not clear what employment the respondent was in at the beginning of the relationship. There is a finding that she commenced working fulltime for Terrace Emporium in November 1994 until February 1995. Terrace Emporium was a business in which the appellant had an interest and which had interests in shops in Katherine and Darwin. Up until April 1995 the respondent did the cooking, cleaning and washing and contributed to the household expenses by purchasing most of the food from her own resources. The appellant paid the outgoings including electricity and assisted with the cleaning from time to time, but…

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 Deans v Jones

Details

AGLC: Deans v Jones [2003] NTSC 117
Case: [2003] NTSC 117
Decision Date: 3 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Deans v Jones, the appellant, Peter Noel Deans, appealed against a decision made by the Master under the De Facto Relationships Act, which had ordered an adjustment in property interests in his favour. The respondent, Jennifer Phyllis Jones, had sought an adjustment in property interests, and the Master found in her favour, awarding her $45,000 inclusive of interest. The appeal centred on three grounds, namely, the Master's failure to specify the interest rate, period and amount, the absence of findings on the extent of the asset pools at the beginning and end of the relationship, and the lack of findings on the actual contribution in monetary terms. The court found that the Master's reasons were inadequate, as it was not possible to discern whether all relevant factors were taken into account, and how the ultimate order was arrived at. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Master for rehearing on all issues. The court made directions that the issues relating to the period of the relationship and the running of the Palms Diner were not to be reagitated, as they were contentious issues resolved by the Master, and neither party sought to challenge his findings or reasons in respect thereof.

Orders