SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
H v M [2006] QSC 354
PARTIES:
H
(applicant)
v
M
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
BS 3537/05
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Civil Trial
ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court
QueenslandDELIVERED ON:
27 November 2006
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
9 November 2006
JUDGE:
Lyons J
ORDER:
That the respondent pay the applicant $9,249.10 within 60 days and that upon such payment, the applicant immediately do all acts and things necessary to transfer her interest in the Deception Bay property to the respondent.1.
If the payment required by paragraph 1 is not made within 60 days then the property at Deception Bay be listed for sale and that upon such sale the sum of money required to ensure that the respondent receives 70 per cent of the net property pool be paid to the respondent with the applicant retaining the balance proceeds.2.
That except as otherwise provided each party retain all property and other assets currently held by them.3.
4.Liberty to each party to apply on 3 days notice in writing to the other. 4.
CATCHWORDS:
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS – GENERALLY
Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 32DA, s 32DA(2)
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), Part 19, s 260, s 261, s 286,
s 287, s 293, s 296, s 297, s 298, s 299, s 399, s 300, s 303, s 305, s 309Bonnici and Bonnici (1992) FLC 92-272 [cited]
McMahon and McMahon (1995) FLC 92-606 [cited] NFO v PFA [2005] QSC 176 [applied] Quinn and Quinn (1979) FLC 90-677 [cited]
S v B [2004] QSC 80 [applied]COUNSEL:
P J Sweetapple for applicant
C F O’Meara for respondentSOLICITORS:
Shila Batenburg & Associates for applicant
Beven Bowe & Associates for respondent
LYONS J: This is an application pursuant to Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) (“PLA”) for a property adjustment. The applicant is 41 years of age and is employed by Education Queensland as a Teacher Librarian. The respondent is 50 years of age and is currently employed on a one year contract as a Captain in the Army. Whilst the applicant has one child there is no child of the relationship.
Whilst the exact date is disputed, it is agreed that the parties were living together by late 2000 and that the relationship finally ended in September 2004. During the period from November 2000 to September 2004 a series of properties were purchased by the respondent, the applicant and by the parties jointly. The sequence can be set out as follows:
1. 16 November 2000 respondent signs contracts to purchase two properties at Zillmere (“Zillmere A” and “Zillmere B”) for $80,000 each with a settlement date of 16 December 2000. Both properties are in the respondent’s name only with a mortgages of $77,108.08 and $72,699.84 to First Australian Building Society dated 8 December 2000.
2. January 2001 the parties move to Zillmere B property.
3.…
Continue reading H v M
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- H v M [2006] QSC 354
- Case
- [2006] QSC 354
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine the fair division of the property pool, considering the contributions of both parties to the relationship and the property. The applicant argued that she was entitled to a greater share of the property due to her contributions, while the respondent contended that an equal division was appropriate. Additionally, the court had to consider the welfare of any children from the relationship, although it was noted that no children were involved in this case.
In reaching its decision, the court examined the duration of the relationship, the contributions of each party, and the circumstances leading to its dissolution. The court found that the applicant's contributions to the relationship warranted a greater share of the property. However, it also recognised the respondent's contributions and determined that an equal division of the property pool would not be just and equitable. Consequently, the court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant a specific sum to equalise their shares of the property pool. If the payment was not made within 60 days, the property was to be listed for sale, with the proceeds distributed according to the court's order.
The court's final orders required the respondent to pay the applicant a specified amount within 60 days, upon which the applicant would transfer her interest in the Deception Bay property to the respondent. If the payment was not made, the property was to be sold, and the proceeds distributed according to the court's determination. Each party was to retain all other property and assets currently held by them. Both parties were granted liberty to apply to the court for further orders.
Orders
Orders of the court
That the respondent pay the applicant $9,249.10 within 60 days and that upon such payment, the applicant immediately do all acts and things necessary to transfer her interest in the Deception Bay property to the respondent.1.
If the payment required by paragraph 1 is not made within 60 days then the property at Deception Bay be listed for sale and that upon such sale the sum of money required to ensure that the respondent receives 70 per cent of the net property pool be paid to the respondent with the applicant retaining the balance proceeds.2.
That except as otherwise provided each party retain all property and other assets currently held by them.3.
4.Liberty to each party to apply on 3 days notice in writing to the other. 4.
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.