Odl v Pry - [2011] QDC 127

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

ODL v PRY [2011] QDC 127

PARTIES:

ODL
(Applicant)

V

PRY
(Respondent)

DIVISION:

Civil Jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Application for Property Adjustment Orders

ORIGINATING COURT:

Maroochydore District Court

DELIVERED ON:

6 May 2011

Final order on 1 July 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore District Court

HEARING DATE:

28 April 2011

JUDGE:

Robertson DCJ

ORDER:

As agreed by the parties in accordance with these reasons

CATCHWORDS:

DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP- PROPERTY SETTLEMENT- Adjustment of property interests- where the parties ended a 8 year de facto relationship- where the applicant seeks a Property Adjustment Order pursuant to Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)- where the respondent made a substantial contribution to the pool of assets at the commencement of the relationship- where the respondent made a substantial contribution to the purchase of property during the relationship- where the applicant claims that she made a higher financial and non financial contribution during the relationship than the respondent- where the applicant and respondent both suffer from significant health problems

Legislation

Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)

Cases

FO v HAF [2006] QCA 555

GAJ v RAJ [2011] QCA 65

Hickey v Hickey [2003] FLC 93-143

TJ v SB & Ors [2010] QCS 403

COUNSEL:

Mr G. Wildie for the applicant

Ms P. Sweetapple for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Baldwin Cartwright for the applicant

SJP Law for the respondent

The applicant applies for Property Adjustment Orders pursuant to Part 19 of the Property Law Act1974 (Qld). She was born on 27 July 1959 so is now 51 and the respondent was born on 20 February 1962 so is now 49. Both have significant health problems to which later reference is made. There is some minor dispute about when they actually commenced living together “on a genuine domestic basis”, but on either case it was in the latter half of 2000. The de facto relationship had concluded by October 2008 although the parties continued to reside under the one roof (‘the Bollier property’) (although at times the respondent lived elsewhere or was in hospital), until the applicant moved out in January 2010. It is common ground that the parties ceased to live together on a genuine domestic basis in October 2008, so the de facto relationship was of approximately eight years duration.

The proper approach to such applications is well established and is set out and discussed in a number of decisions of the Court of Appeal: GAJ v RAJ [2011] QCA 65 per White JA at paras [8]-[10] of her Honour’s judgment; FO v HAF [2006] QCA 555 per Keane JA (as the Chief Justice of the Federal Court then was) at paras [46]-[52]. In that judgment his Honour referred to the utility and value of applying to these applications of the four step approach undertaken by the Full Court of the Family Court in Hickey v Hickey [2003] FLC 93-143 at 78, 386.

In this case there is very little dispute between the parties and they have helpfully agreed to the…

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 Odl v Pry

Details

AGLC: Odl v Pry [2011] QDC 127
Case: [2011] QDC 127
Decision Date: 6 May 2011 Final order on 1 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Odl v Pry, the applicant sought a Property Adjustment Order under Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) to adjust the property interests between the parties following the end of their eight-year de facto relationship. The applicant contended that she had made a higher financial and non-financial contribution to the relationship compared to the respondent. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that she had made substantial contributions to the pool of assets at the beginning of the relationship and to the purchase of property during the relationship.

The court was required to determine the extent of the applicant's and respondent's financial and non-financial contributions to the relationship and whether any of these contributions warranted a property adjustment. The court also needed to consider the health conditions of both parties and how these might impact their ability to contribute financially or non-financially. The relevant case law provided guidance on how to assess contributions and the importance of fairness in the distribution of property.

The court analysed the evidence presented by both parties, taking into account their respective financial and non-financial contributions, as well as the health conditions of both. The court found that while the applicant had made a significant contribution, the respondent's contributions, particularly at the beginning of the relationship, were also substantial. The court noted that both parties had suffered from significant health problems, which had affected their ability to contribute. The court concluded that an adjustment of property interests was necessary to achieve fairness between the parties. As per the agreement of the parties, the final orders were made in accordance with the reasons provided by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

As agreed by the parties in accordance with these reasons

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.

CITATION:	ODL v PRY [2011] QDC 127
PARTIES:	ODL (Applicant) V PRY (Respondent)
DIVISION:	Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Application for Property Adjustment Orders
ORIGINATING COURT:	Maroochydore District Court
DELIVERED ON:	6 May 2011 Final order on 1 July 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore District Court
HEARING DATE:	28 April 2011
JUDGE:	Robertson DCJ
ORDER:	As agreed by the parties in accordance with these reasons
CATCHWORDS:	DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP- PROPERTY SETTLEMENT- Adjustment of property interests- where the parties ended a 8 year de facto relationship- where the applicant seeks a Property Adjustment Order pursuant to Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)- where the respondent made a substantial contribution to the pool of assets at the commencement of the relationship- where the respondent made a substantial contribution to the purchase of property during the relationship- where the applicant claims that she made a higher financial and non financial contribution during the relationship than the respondent- where the applicant and respondent both suffer from significant health problems Legislation Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) Cases FO v HAF [2006] QCA 555 GAJ v RAJ [2011] QCA 65 Hickey v Hickey [2003] FLC 93-143 TJ v SB & Ors [2010] QCS 403
COUNSEL:	Mr G. Wildie for the applicant Ms P. Sweetapple for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Baldwin Cartwright for the applicant SJP Law for the respondent