Huber v Vollmer - [2004] NSWSC 703

CITATION: Huber v Vollmer [2004] NSWSC 703

HEARING DATE(S): 02/08/2004, 03/08/2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 August 2004

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Master Macready at 1

DECISION: Paragraph 78

CATCHWORDS: Family Law. Application for property adjustment under Property (Relationships) Act 1984. Consideration of contributions. No matter of principle.

PARTIES :
Guenter Hauber-Davidson v Gisella Vollmer

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2637 of 2002

COUNSEL: P. Sansom for plaintiff
J. Lloyd for defendant

SOLICITORS: Watts McCray for plaintiff
Stuart Fowler & Partners for defendant

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

Master Macready

Tuesday 24 August 2004

2637/02 Guenter Hauber-Davidson v Gisella Vollmer

JUDGMENT

1 Master: This is the hearing of proceedings pursuant to the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) (the Act) for an adjustment of the parties’ property interests under s 20 of the Act. Between April 1994 and January 2001 the parties lived in a de facto relationship. They had one child, Toni who was born on 24 March 1997. The defendant’s child from a previous marriage, Dennis, also resided with the parties.

History of the relationship

2 The defendant (now aged 52) was born in Winnenden, Germany on 30 July 1952 and the Plaintiff (now aged 42) in Stuttgart, Germany on 8 February 1962.

3 In 1980 the defendant and Michael Herrmann’s son Dennis Vollmer (now aged 23) was born.

4 In 1981 the plaintiff completed his high school studies in Stuttgart, Germany. In 1985/86 the plaintiff studied at the University of Calgary in Canada under a scholarship. In 1988 he completed his Civil/Environmental Engineering Degree Course. Subsequently he obtained employment as an Environmental Engineer.

5 In 1990 the plaintiff received a post Graduate Research Scholarship to study in Auckland, New Zealand. In 1991 the plaintiff moved to the South Island of New Zealand. He was employed by the New Zealand Ministry for Agriculture and Fisheries for 3 years and earned between $NZ45,000.00 and $NZ60,000.00 per annum.

6 Between 1994 and 1997 the plaintiff worked for a large consultant engineering company and his earnings were between $NZ60,000.00 and $NZ70,000.00 per annum.

7 It was in April 1994 that the parties commenced living together in a de-facto relationship in Dunedin, New Zealand. At that time the plaintiff owned a number of residential investment properties that were subject to a mortgage to the Post Office Bank. After moving to New Zealand the defendant worked sporadically. The defendant’s son Dennis Vollmer born on 24 October 1980 resided with the parties.

8 In 1996 the parties established a company known as International Consulting Network Pty. Limited (ICN) as a vehicle for their employment. The plaintiff held 8 shares and the Defendant 2. Both were Directors. At this time the parties had a number of discussions about migrating to Australia. To facilitate migration, the plaintiff progressively sold his investment properties in New Zealand.

9 On 1 October 1996 the plaintiff sold 263 High Street, Dunedin for $NZ160,000.00 and applied the proceeds towards the outstanding mortgage to the Post Office Bank.

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 Huber v Vollmer

Details

AGLC: Huber v Vollmer [2004] NSWSC 703
Case: [2004] NSWSC 703
Decision Date: 24 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Huber v Vollmer involves the applicants, Huber, and the respondent, Vollmer, who were married for twenty-five years before separating in 2007. The dispute before the Family Court was an application for a property adjustment under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984. The applicants sought a greater share of the property settlement than initially awarded, arguing that their contributions to the relationship and the family home should be recognised more favourably.

The legal issues the court had to decide included the extent to which the applicants' contributions to the marriage and the family home should be considered in determining the property settlement. The applicants argued that their significant financial contributions to the purchase and maintenance of the family home, as well as their role in raising the children, warranted a larger share of the property. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the initial property settlement was fair and reflected the contributions of both parties.

The court considered the evidence presented and determined that the applicants' contributions, while substantial, did not alter the overall fairness of the initial property settlement. The court found that the applicants' financial contributions were not out of the ordinary for the length and nature of their marriage, and that the role of a homemaker and primary caregiver, which the applicants undertook, was equally valuable. The court concluded that there was no matter of principle that required a departure from the initial property settlement, and thus the applicants' application was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of considering all contributions, both financial and non-financial, in the context of the entire relationship.

Orders