Gleeson v Hammerton - [2004] SADC 133

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
GLEESON v HAMMERTON
Judgment of His Honour Judge Kitchen
30 September 2004
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS
Application for division of property - 12 year relationship - after 4 years plaintiff resigned from her employment in marketing - child of relationship - plaintiff in fulltime role as homemaker and parent - disparate financial contributions by plaintiff and defendant (a medical practitioner) - plaintiff effectively not able to resume or re-enter upon career as marketer - child requiring on-going support of plaintiff - age of plaintiff, absence from workforce and hand disability affect her opportunity to successfully compete for available employment - order that defendant pay lump sum of $200,000 to plaintiff.
De Facto Relationships Act 1996; Limitations of Actions Act 1936; Family Law Act 1975; De Factro Relationships Act 1984 (NSW), referred to.
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 337, applied.
Arnold v Dalton (2002) 224 LSJS 235, discussed.
Harris v McIntosh (2001) 3 NZLR 721; Pomeroy v Thwaites Witham Pty Ltd (2001) 79 SASR 489; Love v Chidley (2002) 219 LSJS 287; In the Marriage of Horsley (1991) 103 FLR 186; Evans v Marmont (1997) 21 FLR 760; In the Marriage of Kennon (1997) 22 FLR 1, considered.

GLEESON v HAMMERTON
[2004] SADC 133

In these proceedings the plaintiff, by her Statement of Claim filed on 16November 2001, sought an order pursuant to Section 10(1) of the De Facto Relationships Act 1996 (the Act) for a division of property. The plaintiff also sought, pursuant to Section 9(3) of the Act, an extension of the time within which to make the application for that order and, further, sought an extension of time pursuant to Section 48 of the Limitations of Actions Act 1936 within which to claim damages from the defendant for an alleged assault upon her by the defendant.
As to her application for division of property the plaintiff claimed that “In the absence of full particulars as to the value of the assets of the relationship the plaintiff nominates that the defendant do pay to her the sum of $500,000.”
The defendant filed a defence and counterclaim on 21 January 2002. By his defence, the defendant put in issue some of the plaintiff’s allegations made in the Statement of Claim but, in particular, he opposed the plaintiff’s application for an extension of time pursuant to Section 9(3) of the Act, and opposed the application by the plaintiff for an extension of time concerning the alleged assault by the defendant upon the plaintiff.
By his counterclaim the defendant sought an order:
·that a house property at Hill Street, North Adelaide purchased by the parties in their joint names in February 1991 “be sold and the nett proceeds of sale be divided between the parties in proportion to their relative contributions”
·that the plaintiff forthwith deliver up to the defendant all personal belongings of the defendant retained by the plaintiff and further that the…

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 Gleeson v Hammerton

Details

AGLC: Gleeson v Hammerton [2004] SADC 133
Case: [2004] SADC 133
Decision Date: 30 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Gleeson v Hammerton, the parties were a couple who had been in a de facto relationship for 12 years, with four of those years being in a registered partnership. The central dispute was the division of property between the parties upon the termination of their relationship. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were the nature of the financial contributions made by each party to the relationship, the role of the plaintiff as a homemaker and parent, and the impact of her absence from the workforce on her ability to compete for employment in the future. The court also needed to consider the age of the plaintiff, her hand disability, and the ongoing support required for the child of the relationship.

The court determined that the plaintiff had made significant non-financial contributions to the relationship, primarily through her role as a homemaker and parent, and that these contributions were of equal value to the financial contributions made by the defendant. It was noted that the plaintiff had resigned from her employment in marketing after four years of the relationship, and had been unable to resume or re-enter her career due to her age, absence from the workforce, and her hand disability. The court found that these factors significantly affected her ability to compete for available employment. As a result, the court ordered the defendant to pay a lump sum of $200,000 to the plaintiff as part of the division of property.

The final orders of the court included the division of property between the parties, with the defendant required to pay a lump sum of $200,000 to the plaintiff. The court also made orders regarding the care and support of the child of the relationship.

Orders