Jackson v Jackson

[2000] NSWCA 303

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION:         Jackson v Jackson [2000]  NSWCA 303

FILE NUMBER(S):
40387/99

HEARING DATE(S):          23/10/00

JUDGMENT DATE:           01/11/2000

PARTIES:
William Edward Jackson - Appellant
Grace Makalesi Jackson - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Stein JA Giles JA Rolfe AJA   

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:    Supreme Court - Equity Division

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):               4346/97

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:          Master Macready

COUNSEL:
Mr P.LeG. Brereton SC/Mr D.P. Ash - Appellant
Mr C. Watkins - Respondent

SOLICITORS:
Turner Freeman - Appellant
Watkins Tapsell - Respondent

CATCHWORDS:
Family Law - De facto relatioinships - Proper way in which to make orders for adjustment of property - Amount awarded by Master clearly justifiable - De Facto Relationships Act 1984, s.20

LEGISLATION CITED:
De Facto Relationships Act 1984
Supreme Court Act 1970

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed with costs. ND

JUDGMENT:

THE SUPREME COURT  
OF NEW SOUTH WALES  
COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40387 of 1999
  ED   4346 of 1997

STEIN JA
  GILES JA
  ROLFE AJA

WEDNESDAY, 1 NOVEMBER 2000  

JACKSON   v   JACKSON

JUDGMENT

1. STEIN JA:  I agree with Rolfe AJA, his reasons and orders save in one respect.  I also agree with his Honour’s remarks on the question of the possible need for leave to appeal.  This should be kept in mind in future appeals under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984.

2. My only departure from the reasons of Rolfe AJA is from his conclusion that the Master’s award was ‘somewhat generous’ (para 34). The Master found that the s 20(1)(b) contributions for parenting and homemaking ‘strongly favour’ the respondent. The evidence before the Master and his findings on the quality of the appellant’s homemaking contribution plainly justified the conclusion. I have no difficulty in this finding translating into the monetary figure of $48,339 mentioned by Rolfe AJA in his judgment. Certainly it was within the discretionary range of the Master. No appellate intervention is justified.

3. GILES JA:  I agree with Rolfe AJA.

   ROLFE AJA:

   Introduction

4. By a Statement of Claim issued on 10 October 1997 the appellant, Mr William Edward Jackson, for whom Mr P. Le G. Brereton of Senior Counsel and Mr D.P. Ash of Counsel appeared, sought orders against the respondent, Mrs Grace Makalesi Jackson, for whom Mr C. Watkins of Counsel appeared, for the adjustment of the parties’ property interests pursuant to the De Facto Relationships Act 1984, (“the Act”).

5. The respondent defended the proceedings and cross-claimed against the appellant for different adjustment of the parties’ property interests and also for damages for assaults upon her during the relationship.  Although the  causes of action in respect of some assaults were found to be statute barred, she satisfied Master Macready, by whom the matter was heard, that she had causes of action in respect of each of three assaults and he awarded her damages for each totalling $15,000, against which no appeal has been brought. 

6. On 26 March 1999, Master Macready ordered that the appellant pay the respondent $155,000, i.e. the sum of $140,000 by way of property adjustment and $15,000 damages for assault, within…