N, A-B v v, Am

The parties, Mr N and Ms V, were in a de facto relationship from 1998 to 2004 and had one child together. Following their separation, Ms V initiated proceedings in the District Court seeking an adjustment of property interests under the *De Facto Relationships Act 1996* (SA). A District Court Judge declared the de facto relationship and ordered no adjustment to the parties' equal half shares in the Greenhill property, divided the contents of the property equally, and made no adjustment regarding their motor vehicles. Mr N appealed the order concerning the Greenhill property, arguing the Judge failed to adequately consider his financial contributions post-separation and to credit him for Ms V's sole occupation of the property.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the trial Judge erred in not giving sufficient weight to Mr N's financial contributions after the date of separation, whether credit should have been given to reflect Ms V's sole occupation of the Greenhill property post-separation, and consequently, whether Mr N was entitled to a greater share of that property. The appeal also touched upon the Judge's finding that there was an agreement for Ms V to reside in the property rent-free, and the relevance of this to the property adjustment.

The Full Court noted that while the trial Judge did not explicitly use the terms "occupation rent" or "occupation fee," the reasoning indicated that the sole occupation of the property by Ms V without financial contribution was a factual matter taken into account. However, the Court found that the trial Judge's acceptance of Ms V's evidence regarding a rent-free occupation agreement was not adequately explained, particularly in light of conflicting evidence from Mr N and the equivocal nature of Ms V's own testimony on the matter. Despite this, the Court observed that this "agreement" appeared to play a minimal role in the Judge's ultimate decision for no adjustment. The Judge had summarised the parties' financial and non-financial contributions and applied the principle that equality of contribution would lead to an equal division of property, concluding that there was no sound reason to attach greater value to Mr N's financial contribution over Ms V's non-financial contribution. The Court acknowledged the difficulties faced by the trial Judge due to the parties being self-represented and the resulting lack of detailed evidence regarding asset values.

The Full Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order for no adjustment of the parties' interests in the Greenhill property. The matter was remitted to the District Court for redetermination, with directions to consider the period of Ms V's sole occupation of the property post-separation and to make appropriate adjustments to the parties' respective shares in the Greenhill property.