Ireland v Pratley - [2013] NSWCA 445

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ireland v Pratley [2013] NSWCA 445
Hearing dates: 5 December 2013
Decision date: 18 December 2013
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]
Ward JA at [2]
Sackville AJA at [3]
Decision:
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Cross-appeal dismissed.
3. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
4. The respondent/cross-appellant pay the appellant/cross-respondent's costs of the cross-appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - de facto relationships - adjustment of property interests - whether primary Judge addressed correct issues - whether primary Judge's discretion miscarried - whether primary Judge failed to provide adequate reasons - whether discretion in relation to costs miscarried
Legislation Cited:
Property (Relationships) Act 1984, ss 20, 47
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 42.1
Cases Cited: Baker v Towle [2008] NSWCA 73; 39 Fam LR 323
Chanter v Catts [2005] NSWCA 411; 64 NSWLR 360
Separovich v Ferrao [2011] NSWCA 180
Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
Benjamin Murray Ireland (Appellant/Cross-Respondent)
Juliet Pratley (Respondent/Cross-Appellant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M W Anderson (Appellant/Cross-Respondent)

J S Gleeson SC (Respondent/Cross-Appellant)
Solicitors:
Belinda Eyers and Associates (Appellant/ Cross-Respondent)
Jo-Anna F S Moy Solicitor (Respondent/Cross-Appellant)

File Number(s): 2013/92845
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9111

Citation:

Pratley v Ireland [2013] NSWSC 151

Date of Decision:

2013-02-27 00:00:00

Before:

Macready AsJ

File Number(s):

2010/265786

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA: I agree with Sackville AJA.

WARD JA: I agree with Sackville AJA.

SACKVILLE AJA: This is an appeal from orders made by an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court (Macready AsJ) in an application brought under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 ("the Act").

The respondent ("Ms Pratley") and the appellant ("Mr Ireland") lived in a de facto relationship from about August 2003 until 1 January 2009. They have one child, born in October 2007.

The proceedings were commenced by Ms Pratley on 10 August 2010. By an amended statement of claim ("ASC") filed on 27 September 2011 she sought, relevantly, the following relief:

2 An Order pursuant to Section 20 of the Act that [Ms Pratley] receive the equivalent of 45% of the net equitable value of the total net property to be implemented as follows:

(a) A Declaration pursuant to section 56 of the Act that [Ms Pratley] be declared sole legal and equitable owner of all property, real and personal, and financial resources in her possession or control and to which she is otherwise entitled.

(b) That [Mr Ireland] within two months pay to [Ms Pratley] a sum of money equivalent to the difference between the value of the property in…

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 Ireland v Pratley

Details

AGLC: Ireland v Pratley [2013] NSWCA 445
Case: [2013] NSWCA 445
Decision Date: 18 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned an application for adjustment of property interests arising from a de facto relationship. The primary judge had made orders adjusting the property interests of the parties. The appellant sought to appeal these orders, arguing that the primary judge had failed to address the correct issues, that the judge's discretion had miscarried, and that inadequate reasons had been provided for the decision. The respondent cross-appealed, also raising issues concerning the primary judge's discretion and the adequacy of reasons.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge had properly considered all relevant issues in making the property adjustment orders, whether the exercise of discretion in relation to the property settlement was sound, and whether the reasons provided by the primary judge were sufficient. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the primary judge's discretion in relation to costs had miscarried.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal. The court found no error in the primary judge's approach to the issues or in the exercise of discretion regarding the property adjustment. The reasons provided were deemed adequate. Consequently, the appeal and cross-appeal were unsuccessful.

The orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and the cross-appeal be dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, and the respondent, in their capacity as cross-appellant, was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the cross-appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Cross-appeal dismissed.

3. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

4. The respondent/cross-appellant pay the appellant/cross-respondent's costs of the cross-appeal.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Ireland v Pratley [2013] NSWCA 445
Hearing dates:	5 December 2013
Decision date:	18 December 2013
Before:	Macfarlan JA at [1] Ward JA at [2] Sackville AJA at [3]
Decision:	1. Appeal dismissed. 2. Cross-appeal dismissed. 3. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. 4. The respondent/cross-appellant pay the appellant/cross-respondent's costs of the cross-appeal. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW - de facto relationships - adjustment of property interests - whether primary Judge addressed correct issues - whether primary Judge's discretion miscarried - whether primary Judge failed to provide adequate reasons - whether discretion in relation to costs miscarried
Legislation Cited:	Property (Relationships) Act 1984, ss 20, 47 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 42.1
Cases Cited:	Baker v Towle [2008] NSWCA 73; 39 Fam LR 323 Chanter v Catts [2005] NSWCA 411; 64 NSWLR 360 Separovich v Ferrao [2011] NSWCA 180
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Benjamin Murray Ireland (Appellant/Cross-Respondent) Juliet Pratley (Respondent/Cross-Appellant)
Representation:	Counsel: M W Anderson (Appellant/Cross-Respondent) J S Gleeson SC (Respondent/Cross-Appellant) Solicitors: Belinda Eyers and Associates (Appellant/ Cross-Respondent) Jo-Anna F S Moy Solicitor (Respondent/Cross-Appellant)
File Number(s):	2013/92845
Decision under appeal	Jurisdiction: 9111 Citation: Pratley v Ireland [2013] NSWSC 151 Date of Decision: 2013-02-27 00:00:00 Before: Macready AsJ File Number(s): 2010/265786