LW v GAB

[2007] QCA 386

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

LW v GAB [2007] QCA 386

PARTIES:

LW
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
GAB
(defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5451 of 2007
SC No 6969 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 November 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 October 2007

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and Dutney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Appeal dismissed

2. Appellant to pay respondent's costs on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS – GENERALLY – where learned trial judge found appellant's evidence unreliable – whether learned trial judge incorrectly included certain items in asset pool – whether 70/30 apportionment in favour of appellant was overly generous to respondent 

FO v HAF [2006] QCA 555; Appeal No 4280 of 2006,
19 December 2006, applied
Murphy v Murphy [2007] FamCA 795, cited

COUNSEL:

H B Fraser QC, with T A Houghton, for the appellant
W J Hodges for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Hopgood Ganim Lawyers for the appellant
Canning Craymer Lawyers for the respondent

1. WILLIAMS JA:  Particularly given the adverse findings made with respect to the credibility of evidence given by the appellant, which findings were clearly justified, the conclusion reached by the judge at first instance with respect to the value of the asset pool and its distribution does not reveal any appellable error.  I agree with the reasons published by Keane JA for concluding that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

1. KEANE JA: In August 2004, the respondent to this appeal commenced proceedings in the Trial Division for relief under Pt 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) ("the Act") for a just and equitable property distribution after the end of her de facto relationship with the appellant. That relationship lasted for 11 years, commencing in May 1993 and concluding on 18 March 2004. The respondent's proceedings came to trial in February this year. In a judgment delivered on 28 May 2007, the learned trial judge held that the value of their pool of assets was $3,815,221, and divided the asset pool 70/30 in favour of the appellant. In consequence, the appellant was ordered, inter alia, to pay to the respondent $1,137,741.

1. The appellant contends that the learned trial judge erred in:

(a)        inflating the value of the asset pool available for distribution by including items which should not have been so included; and

(b)        making an overly generous apportionment of the asset pool to the appellant, the just and equitable distribution being of the order of 85/15 in favour of the appellant.

1. The learned trial judge canvassed the evidence in detail and made comprehensive findings of fact.  The determination of the application involved the exercise of a judicial discretion as to what was a just and equitable property distribution.  That discretion fell to be exercised on the basis…