Glover v Crispen - [2009] NSWSC 425

CITATION: Glover v Crispen [2009] NSWSC 425

HEARING DATE(S): 17/03/09, 18/03/09

JUDGMENT DATE :
22 May 2009

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Macready AsJ at 1

DECISION: Paragraph 45

CATCHWORDS: Family Provision. Application for property adjustment under s20 of Property (Relationships) Act 1984. Short period of cohabitation. Orders for adjustment. No matter of principle.

PARTIES: Janette Glover v Dennis Crispen

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 3220/07

COUNSEL: Mr P Davies for plaintiff
Mr GW McGrath for defendant

SOLICITORS: Fishburn Watson O'Brien for plaintiff
MBT Lawyers for defendant

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MACREADY

Friday 22 May 2009

3220/2007 Janette Glover v Dennis Crispen

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is a hearing of the plaintiff’s application for adjustment of the parties’ interests in property pursuant to section 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act1984.

2 The plaintiff, Janette Glover, and the defendant, Dennis Crispin were in a de facto relationship from 11 November 2003 until 31 July 2006 a period of just 2 years and 9 months.

3 There were no children of the relationship but the plaintiff’s daughter of a prior de facto relationship, Holly (who is now 18 years old), lived with the parties throughout the course of the relationship. The plaintiff’s son from a prior marriage, Mitchell, lived with them also from time to time during the relationship.

Background facts

4 The plaintiff was born in June 1951 and is now 57 years old. Mr Crispin was born in December 1950 and is now 58 years old.

5 The plaintiff had two children of a prior marriage, Casey and Mitchell, and as discussed, a child of a prior to de facto relationship, Holly, born in July 1990.

6 The plaintiff and the defendant first met in May 1998 and in about September that year the defendant commenced staying overnight at the plaintiff's home at Gresham Drive, Woolgoolga, one night during the week and on the weekends. Later the overnight stays increased in duration of up to four nights a week.

7 On 11 November 2003, the defendant moved in to live with the plaintiff in her home at Gresham Drive, Woolgoolga and at that time that the parties commenced living together as a de facto couple.

8 The defendant had his own home at Pacific Street, Corindi Beach, New South Wales which he rented from the time he moved in with the plaintiff.

9 As I have mentioned the de facto relationship came to an end on 31 July 2006, when the defendant returned to live in his own home at Pacific Street, Corindi Beach. During the relationship and subsequently the parties kept their income expenses and assets separate.

10 In Howlett v Nielson [2005] NSWCA 149; (2005) 33 Fam LR 402, at [25], the Court accepted that the exercise of jurisdiction under section 20 of the Act involved three steps:

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 Glover v Crispen

Details

AGLC: Glover v Crispen [2009] NSWSC 425
Case: [2009] NSWSC 425
Decision Date: 22 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Glover v Crispen, the dispute centred around an application for a property adjustment under section 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984. The Applicant, Glover, sought an adjustment to the distribution of property following the death of Crispen, his former de facto partner with whom he had a relatively brief period of cohabitation. The crux of the issue was whether the brief duration of their relationship justified an adjustment to the property distribution as stipulated by the Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the short period of cohabitation warranted a departure from the statutory provisions of the Property (Relationships) Act. This required the court to balance the statutory framework with the equitable principles applicable to de facto relationships. The court had to determine whether the statutory provisions, which typically require a longer period of cohabitation, could be overridden by the equitable considerations unique to this case.

The court held that while the statutory provisions of the Property (Relationships) Act generally required a significant period of cohabitation, there were circumstances where equity might dictate a different outcome. In this instance, the court found that the brief period of cohabitation did not preclude the application of equitable principles, and it was not a matter of principle to deny Glover's application. The court emphasised the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case and the equitable nature of the relationship between the parties. As a result, the court ordered a property adjustment in favour of Glover.

The final orders of the court included a specific property adjustment in favour of Glover, recognising the equitable considerations that arose from the unique circumstances of his relationship with Crispen. The court's decision underscored the necessity of a flexible approach to statutory provisions when equitable considerations are at play.

Orders