CITATION: Giacceri v Fitsimmons [2004] NSWSC 536 HEARING DATE(S): 15, 16, 17 June 2004
1 November 2004JUDGMENT DATE:
17 December 2004JURISDICTION:
Equity DivisionJUDGMENT OF: Master Macready at 1 DECISION: Paragraph 101 CATCHWORDS: Family Law. Application for adjustment of property interests under s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984. Orders for adjustment. No matter of principle. PARTIES :
Giacceri v Fitsimmons FILE NUMBER(S): SC 3488 of 2002 COUNSEL: Mr P Cummings for plaintiff
Mr D.M. Loewenstein for defendantSOLICITORS: Boyd Wooi Olsen Lawyers for plaintiff
Gillis Delaney Brown for defendant
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
Master Macready
Thursday 23 December 2004
3488/02 Paul Vittorio Giaccari v Leanne Fitzsimmons
JUDGMENT
1 Master: This is an application for adjustment property interests under section 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 NSW. The parties lived together in a de facto relationship for a period of about eight years until they separated on 10 October 2000. The plaintiff puts the commencement of the relationship at 30 May 1992 when he says that the parties commenced cohabitation when the defendant and her children moved to live at 23 Amsdale Ave, Macquarie Hills. The defendant suggests that the relationship commenced in January 1991 when the plaintiff separated from his wife or, alternatively, in November 1991 when the purchase of the Amsdale Avenue property was completed.
2 The plaintiff and the defendant had previously been married prior to commencing their relationship. There were no children as a result of their relationship. The plaintiff was born on 6 June 1957 is now 46 years of age. He was formerly married to Jillian Sue Ace in 1980 and they separated in 1991. The plaintiff had two daughters, Rachael born 9 March 1984 and Sarah born 5 January 1989. Sarah lives with her mother and on occasions Rachael has lived with the parties as part of the household. This was from December 1996 until the parties separated.
3 The defendant had been married in 1981 and separated in 1987. She was divorced in 1990. There were two children of the marriage to her husband a Mr Maguire, Emma born on 20 September 1982 and Shaun born 16 August 1986. These children resided with the parties during the period of their relationship.
4 The plaintiff held a Diploma in Civil Engineering and for many years prior to 1991 he had worked for Allco Steel. The defendant had qualifications as an enrolled nurse have worked at Wallsend District hospital. During 1990 the plaintiff had incorporated a company Brentworth Holdings Pty Ltd (“Brentworth”) through which he intended to carry on business with a partner. Unfortunately his partner died and the plaintiff commenced the business after he resigned from Allco Steel on 20 February 1992. He worked with them as a consultant for a few months until he commenced business with his new company. The defendant gave up her work after the commencement of cohabitation and came to work for the plaintiff's…
Continue reading Giacceri v Fitsimmons
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Giacceri v Fitsimmons [2004] NSWSC 536
- Case
- [2004] NSWSC 536
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included the interpretation and application of section 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984, which provides the framework for adjusting property interests in the event of the breakdown of a de facto relationship. The court was required to consider the contributions made by each party to the relationship, including financial contributions, domestic and caring contributions, and non-financial contributions such as the care of children or the home. Additionally, the court had to evaluate the future needs and circumstances of each party to ensure a just and equitable outcome.
The court meticulously assessed the contributions of each party, taking into account the duration of the relationship, the age and health of the parties, and their respective earning capacities. It was determined that the contributions of each party were not equal, with one party making a greater financial contribution and the other party making significant domestic and caring contributions. The court found that it was not a matter of principle to divide the property equally and instead ordered an adjustment of property interests that reflected the unequal contributions and the future needs of the parties. The final orders ensured that the division of the assets was fair and equitable, taking into account the unique circumstances of the relationship and the contributions of each party.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.