Nanschild v Pratt

In the matter of Nanschild v Pratt, the plaintiff sought an order under section 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) for an adjustive property order, following the dissolution of a de facto relationship that had lasted approximately six years. The plaintiff alleged that during the course of the relationship, there was a significant increase in assets, with the plaintiff's financial position being notably stronger than the defendant's. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that there was a considerable imbalance in contributions to the relationship and sought to have her non-financial contributions recognised and considered. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the jurisdiction under section 20 should be exercised and, if so, whether an adjustive property order would be just and equitable in the circumstances. The court had to determine the extent of the contributions made by each party, both financial and non-financial, and assess whether there was a significant imbalance that warranted a property adjustment. The court also had to consider whether the order sought by the plaintiff was just and equitable.

The court found that the relationship between the parties was indeed a de facto relationship and that the jurisdiction under section 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) could be exercised. The court recognised that there was an imbalance of financial contributions between the parties, with the plaintiff's financial position being significantly stronger than the defendant's. The court also acknowledged the importance of the defendant's non-financial contributions, including the care and upbringing of the parties' child. The court concluded that an adjustive order would be just and equitable in the circumstances, taking into account the contributions of both parties and the overall fairness of the outcome.

The court ordered that the plaintiff and defendant were to equally divide the assets accumulated during the relationship, with adjustments made to account for the disparity in financial contributions and the value of the non-financial contributions made by the defendant. The court further directed that the parties were to bear their own legal costs.