Del Gallo v Frederiksen

Case [2000] NSWCA 293


Reported Decision: [2000] 27 Fam LR 162
(2001) DFC 95-230

New South Wales


Court of Appeal

CITATION: Del Gallo v Frederiksen [2000] NSWCA 293
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40626/99
HEARING DATE(S): 12 October 2000
JUDGMENT DATE:
24 October 2000

PARTIES :


Christine Del Gallo (Appellant)
Neil Lewis Frederiksen (Respondent)
JUDGMENT OF: Powell JA at 1; Heydon JA at 4; Rolfe AJA at 69
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court
LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :
ED 1017/98
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Master Macready
COUNSEL: P Brereton SC/J Lloyd (Appellant)
C M Simpson (Respondent)
SOLICITORS: Beilby Poulden Costello (Appellant)
Newnhams (Respondent)
CATCHWORDS: Family Law - De facto relationships - statutory power to make orders adjusting property interests of parties - matters to be considered in making adjustments - pre-cohabitation contributions made by parties - improvement in the financial position of parties during the period of cohabitation - amount awarded by Master not manifestly inadequate - De Facto Relationships Act 1984, s 20. ND
LEGISLATION CITED: De Facto Relationships Act 1984
CASES CITED:
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Dwyer v Kaljo (1987) 11 Fam LR 785
Evans v Malmont (1997) 42 NSWLR 70
Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605
Muschinski v Dodds (1986) 160 CLR 583
Roy v Sturgeon (1989) 13 Fam LR 1
Suttor v Gundowda Pty Limited (1950) 81 CLR 418
Wallace v Stanford (1995) 37 NSWLR 1
DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs



      THE SUPREME COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES
      COURT OF APPEAL

      CA 40626/99
      ED 1017/98

      POWELL JA
      HEYDON JA
      ROLFE AJA

      Tuesday, 24 October 2000

      DEL GALLO v FREDERIKSEN
      JUDGMENT

1    POWELL JA: I have read in draft the Judgment which has been prepared in this matter by Heydon JA.

2    Although I remain of the view which I expressed in Roy v. Sturgeon (1989) 13 Fam LR 1, I agree with his Honour that, even if those views be in error, and it were open to the Master to take into account pre-cohabitation contributions, the Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the amount awarded by the Master was manifestly inadequate.

3    I agree with the Orders which his Honour proposes.
4   

HEYDON JA:
      Background
      This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order made by Master Macready on 23 June 1999 that the defendant pay to the plaintiff by way of adjustment of the parties’ property interests the sum of $35,000. The order was made pursuant to s 20 of the De Facto Relationships Act 1984 (“the Act”). It was common ground on the appeal that it was that statute, which was amended and renamed with effect from 28 June 1999, less than a month before the Master delivered judgment, which applied, not the amended statute. Section 20(1) provides:
          “ Application for adjustment
          (1) On an application by a de facto partner for an order under this Part to adjust interests with respect to the property of the de facto partners or either of them, a court may make such order adjusting…

Continue reading Del Gallo v Frederiksen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Del Gallo v Frederiksen [2000] NSWCA 293
Case
[2000] NSWCA 293
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the division of property following the breakdown of a de facto relationship between the parties, Mr Del Gallo and Ms Frederiksen. The primary dispute revolved around the adequacy of the property adjustment orders made by the Master. The matter was heard on appeal in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Master's orders regarding the adjustment of the parties' property interests were manifestly inadequate, having regard to the provisions of the *De Facto Relationships Act 1984* (NSW). This required the Court to consider the relevant factors the Master should have taken into account, including pre-cohabitation contributions and improvements in the parties' financial positions during the period of cohabitation.

The Court found that the Master had properly considered the relevant factors under section 20 of the *De Facto Relationships Act 1984*. The Master's assessment of the parties' contributions and the overall financial circumstances was not demonstrably wrong or unjust. Consequently, the Court concluded that the amount awarded by the Master was not manifestly inadequate.

The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs

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.