Legal Research
Cases
M, PJ v W, JW

M, PJ v W, JW

Case [2014] SADC 58 4 April 2014

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court of South Australia
(Civil)
M, PJ v W, JW
[2014] SADC 58
Judgment of His Honour Judge Stretton
4 April 2014
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS - ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS - RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS
The plaintiff and the defendant met in 1999 and separated in 2008. The plaintiff sought a declaration pursuant to the Domestic Partners Property Act that she was in a close personal relationship with the defendant and sought a division of property held at the end of the relationship on the basis of her non-financial contributions to the defendant. She sought an extension of time. There was substantial factual disagreement between the parties particularly as to when the parties commenced co-habitation, the extent and value of the contributions and whether the parties agreed to and did resolve their financial issues at the conclusion of the relationship.
HELD
1. The plaintiff and the defendant were in a close personal relationship as defined by the Act from January 2004 until September 2008
2. The plaintiff did contribute within the meaning of section 11 of the Act, however the plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed on the merits on the basis that the contributions of the plaintiff have already been sufficiently recognised and compensated for
3. The parties resolved and settled the claim as between themselves in or around November 2008
4. An extension of time should not be granted, as the court is not satisfied that an extension is necessary to avoid serious injustice to the applicant
Domestic Partners Property Act (SA) 1996 s9, s11; District Court Rules 2006 (SA) r 117, referred to.
Cooper v Lees [2009] SASCFC 386; Wilson v Vater (No 1) [2008] SASC 7; IW v City of Perth (1996) 191 CLR 1; Public Trustee v Newman [2012] SASCFC 18; Parker v Parker (1993) 16 Fam LR 863; Hogg v Roberts [2003] SASC 410; Parij v Parij (1998) 72 SASR 153, considered.

M, PJ v W, JW
[2014] SADC 58
The action

This an application by the plaintiff PJM for a declaration and an order for division of property pursuant to the Domestic Partners Property Act (“the Act”). The plaintiff seeks a declaration that she was in a close personal relationship as defined by the Act with the defendant JW and in all the circumstances seeks that she be awarded a division of property held at the end of the relationship.
The action was commenced 11 months after the expiry of the 12 month limitation prescribed in the Act and accordingly the plaintiff also seeks an extension of time. The parties proposed and agreed that both the trial and the application for extension of time proceed together.
If the plaintiff is not granted an extension of time, then in the alternative the plaintiff seeks declarations that the defendant holds interests in several properties, certain proceeds of sale and two companies on trust for her in such proportions the court may deem to be…

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 M, PJ v W, JW

Details

AGLC: M, PJ v W, JW [2014] SADC 58
Case: [2014] SADC 58
Decision Date: 4 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a dispute between M, PJ, the plaintiff, and W, JW, the defendant, regarding the division of property held at the conclusion of their de facto relationship. The plaintiff sought a declaration under the Domestic Partners Property Act that she was in a close personal relationship with the defendant and requested an equitable division of the property based on her non-financial contributions to the relationship. Additionally, she sought an extension of time to file her application. The matter was heard in a family law court, where the court had to consider the relevant factors to determine if the plaintiff was entitled to a division of the property.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a division of property held by the defendant at the end of their de facto relationship. The court had to consider the relevant factors under the Domestic Partners Property Act, including the length and nature of the relationship, the extent of the contributions made by the plaintiff, and whether there was an agreement between the parties regarding the division of their financial assets at the conclusion of their relationship. The court also had to determine if the plaintiff's application was within the time limit prescribed by the Act.

The court found that the plaintiff was in a close personal relationship with the defendant and that the contributions made by the plaintiff were significant. However, the court found that the parties had an agreement to resolve their financial issues at the conclusion of their relationship, which meant that the plaintiff was not entitled to a division of the property. The court also found that the plaintiff's application was outside the time limit prescribed by the Act, and therefore, the plaintiff's application was dismissed. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant legal principles under the Domestic Partners Property Act.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for a declaration and division of property, and the defendant was not required to make any financial contributions to the plaintiff. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant legal principles under the Domestic Partners Property Act. The court found that the parties had an agreement to resolve their financial issues at the conclusion of their relationship, which meant that the plaintiff was not entitled to a division of the property. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff's application was outside the time limit prescribed by the Act.

Orders