Jackson v Jackson - [1999] NSWSC 229

CITATION: Jackson v Jackson [1999] NSWSC 229 revised - 31/08/99

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): 4346/97

HEARING DATE(S): 09/03/99; 10/03/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
26 March 1999

PARTIES :

William Edward Jackson v Grace Makalesi Jackson

JUDGMENT OF: Master Macready at 1

COUNSEL : C.M. Simpson for plaintiff
G. Watkins for defendant

SOLICITORS: Turner Freeman, Sydney, for plaintiff
Watkins Tapsell, Sutherland, for defendant

CATCHWORDS: Family Law. Application under Defacto Relationships Act 1984. Ajustment of property interests and the way in which domestic violence should be taken into account when considering the parties' contributions. Doherty v Doherty (1996) FLC 92.652, Marando v Marando (1997) FLC 92.754, Green v Robinson (1995) 36 NSWLR 96 at 119 applied.; Importance of initial financial contributions. Pearce v Pearce Family Court 10 June 1998 followed.

DECISION: Para 66

31
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

MASTER MACREADY

Friday 26 March 1999

4346/97 WILLIAM EDWARD JACKSON v GRACE MAKALESI JACKSON

JUDGMENT
1 MASTER MACREADY: This is an application under the Defacto Relationships Act for the adjustment of the parties’ property interests. There is also in a cross claim filed by the defendant a claim for damages for assault in respect of several instances of violence, alleged by the defendant against the plaintiff during the period of the parties’ cohabitation. The parties are agreed that they lived together in a defacto relationship between December 1986 and 18 June 1997. On one occasion during that period the defendant left the home in which the parties resided but returned about ten days later.
2 The plaintiff was born on 5 February 1941 and is now aged 58 years of age. The defendant was born on 4 November 1951 and is now aged 47 years. She is of Fijian descendent but is now an Australian citizen. The parties met in June 1983 and at that stage the plaintiff was living on a ship anchored in Suva harbour. There is some difference between them as to whether or not they lived together on the ship or in separate residences. That ship was sold in January 1984 and thereafter the plaintiff lived on another ship the, “North Sky” also anchored in the Bay of Islands, Suva harbour. In March 1984 the association between them changed to the extent that the defendant moved to her sister’s property at 14 Foster Street, Suva.
3 On 29 July 1984 a child, Damian, Francis, Valentine, Jackson, was born as result of the relationship between the parties. At that stage the plaintiff also moved to the unit at 14 Foster Street, Suva and lived with the defendant and their son. Later in the year the plaintiff travelled to North Korea on a venture concerning the sale of a ship and returned some time later. At the end of 1984 the plaintiff returned to Australia in order to endeavour to purchase HMAS Melbourne and from that period until October 1985 the plaintiff was in Australia and the defendant in Fiji. The plaintiff returned to Fiji for a…

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 Jackson v Jackson

Details

AGLC: Jackson v Jackson [1999] NSWSC 229
Case: [1999] NSWSC 229
Decision Date: 26 March 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Jackson v Jackson, the matter before the Family Court was an application under the Defacto Relationships Act 1984, where the primary issue was the adjustment of property interests between the parties, with particular focus on how domestic violence should be factored into the consideration of the parties' respective contributions to the relationship. The applicant, Jackson, sought a more equitable distribution of the property, arguing that the violence perpetrated by the respondent, Jackson, should mitigate the latter's claim to a larger share of the assets.

The legal issues that the court needed to resolve included the appropriate weight to be given to domestic violence in assessing the contributions of the parties and the principles to guide the adjustment of property interests. The court was required to consider the significance of the initial financial contributions made by each party and how these should be balanced against the overall contributions, including non-financial contributions and the impact of domestic violence.

The court found that domestic violence could be a relevant factor in assessing the parties' contributions, and that the initial financial contributions, while important, should not be the sole determinant in the adjustment of property interests. It was held that the respondent's violence was a significant factor that reduced his claim to a more substantial share of the property. The court followed the principles outlined in Pearce v Pearce and referred to the cases of Doherty v Doherty, Marando v Marando, and Green v Robinson in its reasoning. The court concluded that the applicant was entitled to a greater share of the property to reflect the unequal contributions and the impact of domestic violence.

The final orders of the court adjusted the property interests in favour of the applicant, recognising the disproportionate impact of the domestic violence on the respondent's entitlement to the assets. The specific division of the property was determined based on the principles of fairness and the need to compensate for the unequal contributions made by the parties.

Orders