McDonald v Stelzer

Case [2000] NSWCA 302
Reported Decision: [2000] 27 Fam LR 304

New South Wales


Court of Appeal

CITATION: McDONALD v STELZER [2000] NSWCA 302 revised - 7/11/2000
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40505/99
HEARING DATE(S): 12 October 2000
JUDGMENT DATE:
3 November 2000

PARTIES :
Douglas McDonald - Appellant
Christine Stelzer - Respondent
JUDGMENT OF: Priestley JA at 34; Handley JA at 41; Sheller JA at 1
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court - Equity Division
LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 		3083/97
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :		 Bergin J
COUNSEL: M D Broun QC/A G Todd - Appellant
C A Needham SC/V M Heath - Respondent
SOLICITORS: Needs Chan & Monahan - Appellant
Miles Clinton - Respondent
CATCHWORDS: FAMILY LAW - de facto relationships - De Facto Relationships Act 1984, ss 17 and 20 - where relationship existed for less than two years - adjustment of property interests - contributions - contribution prior to commencement of relationship NR
LEGISLATION CITED: De Facto Relationships Act 1984
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
CASES CITED:
 Dwyer v Kaljo (1987) 11 FamLR 785
Evans v Marmont (1997) 42 NSWLR 70
Griffiths v Brodigan (1995) 20 FamLR 822
In the marriage of Olliver (1978) 32 FLR 129
Roy v Sturgeon (1986) 11 NSWLR 454
Wilcock v Sain (1986) 11 FamLR 302
R v Hunt (1979) 25 ALR 497
DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs.



THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
                          CA 40505/99
                          ED 3083/97

                              PRIESTLEY JA
                              HANDLEY JA
                              SHELLER JA
McDONALD v STELZER

The appellant and the respondent were involved in a de facto relationship between April 1994 and January 1996. From January 1995, the parties lived in the appellant’s home. Until 1994 the respondent owned and occupied her own home which she sold in late 1994 in order to join in the development of a property bought by the parties in June that year. This property was developed and subdivided into two houses one of which (117 Holt Road) was transferred into the respondent’s name and the other (117A Holt Road) sold. The trial Judge declared that the respondent should have 117 Holt Road as her own and, together with other adjustments of the proceeds of sale of 117A Holt Road, the respondent received a share of 41.63% of the parties’ property, leaving 58.73% to the appellant who appealed from the decision.

Held (by Sheller JA, Priestley and Handley JJA agreeing):
1. It is not correct to assume, as the appellant submitted, that the financial contributions should be treated as returnable to the contributor and that, given the relatively short period of the relationship, the non-financial contributions should be treated as equal so that the remaining balance would be divided equally.
2. The respondent sold her home to join in the development venture which could not have gone forward without her contribution. The appellant was able to progress the construction work because the respondent used her salary to pay for household expenses. Having made such substantial contributions, the respondent would not, in all the…

Continue reading McDonald v Stelzer

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
McDonald v Stelzer [2000] NSWCA 302
Case
[2000] NSWCA 302
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McDonald (the applicant) and Stelzer (the respondent) were parties to proceedings in the Family Court of Australia concerning the adjustment of property interests arising from a de facto relationship. The primary dispute concerned whether the applicant was entitled to an adjustment of property interests under the *De Facto Relationships Act 1984* (NSW) despite the relationship having subsisted for less than two years.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge erred in finding that the applicant was not entitled to an adjustment of property interests under section 20 of the *De Facto Relationships Act 1984* (NSW) on the basis that the de facto relationship had not existed for the minimum period of two years prescribed by section 17 of the Act, and whether the trial judge had also erred in failing to consider contributions made by the applicant prior to the commencement of the de facto relationship.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Priestley, Handley and Sheller JJA, dismissed the appeal. The Court affirmed the trial judge's finding that the de facto relationship had not existed for the requisite two-year period as stipulated by section 17 of the *De Facto Relationships Act 1984* (NSW). Consequently, the Court held that the applicant was not entitled to seek an adjustment of property interests under section 20 of the Act, as the preconditions for such an application had not been met. The Court further found that contributions made prior to the commencement of the de facto relationship were not a relevant consideration in the absence of the relationship meeting the statutory duration requirement.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

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.