Pac v Ram - [2012] QSC 161

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: PAC v RAM [2012] QSC 161
PARTIES: PAC
(applicant)
v
RAM
(respondent)
FILE NO/S: 1038 of 2008
DIVISION: Trial
PROCEEDING: Trial
ORIGINATING
COURT: Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 22 June 2012
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATES: 23 April 2012, 24 April 2012, 1 May 2012
JUDGE: Dalton J
ORDER:

1. Taxi service licence number 0023081 be sold for
market value. Any contract of sale, and any instrument, notice or form of transfer, is to be signed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court (who is hereby so authorised) in lieu of the respondent.
2.     The proceeds of the sale referred to in order 1 (less any reasonable expenses of sale) are to be paid to the solicitors for the applicant, Gary Rolfe Solicitors, whose receipt shall be a good discharge to the purchaser.
3.     Gary Rolfe is to pay the proceeds of sale referred to at paragraph 2 of this order, in an amount up to $413,000 to the applicant, when those proceeds are received by him. I further direct that if there remain any such proceeds of sale, after the aforesaid payment to the applicant, he is to pay them to the respondent.
4.     Should the amount paid to the applicant referred to in order 3 above be less than $413,000, the applicant has liberty to re-list the matter before me for further orders and directions.
5.    The respondent, at his own expense, and within 14
days of this order, is to deliver to the solicitors for the
applicant the following items of property situated in

the house at 4 Chiltern Place, Sandstone Point in the
State of Queensland:

(a)

a vintage or antique sewing machine belonging to the applicant;
(b) art books belonging to the applicant;
(c) a painting of the applicant, and

(d)

a stone or concrete cat sculpture belonging to the applicant.
6.     Each party to these proceedings is to bear that party’s
own costs of and incidental to the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS: DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS – GENERALLY – application for
a property adjustment order under Part 19 of the Property
Law Act 1974 (Qld) – where the parties began living together as man and wife when they were both of mature years – where the relationship lasted for 24 years – where the
applicant wife brought no assets of any significant value to
the relationship
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)
FO v HAF [2007] 2 Qd R 138
WB v GSH [2008] QSC 346
COUNSEL: M P Van Der Walt for the applicant
SOLICITORS: Gary Rolfe Solicitors for the applicant
Respondent in person

The applicant wife, C, seeks a property adjustment order under Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) (the Act). The applicant was born in September 1942 and the respondent in February 1927. They began living together as man and wife in 1984 and separated, after 24 years, in June 2008. They had no children together. The applicant had four daughters from a previous…

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 Pac v Ram

Details

AGLC: Pac v Ram [2012] QSC 161
Case: [2012] QSC 161
Decision Date: 22 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pac and Ram were the parties in this dispute, which involved an application for property adjustment under the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld). The case was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court. Pac, the applicant, sought an adjustment of the property interests accrued during her de facto relationship with Ram, the respondent. The relationship had lasted for 24 years, during which Pac had contributed no significant assets. The court's primary task was to determine the appropriate distribution of property and assets between the parties, taking into account the duration of their relationship and Pac's contributions.

The court had to address several legal issues, including whether the relationship qualified as a de facto relationship under the Act, the extent of Pac's contributions to the relationship and the assets accumulated, and how the property should be divided to achieve a just outcome. The court also had to consider the specific assets in question, such as the taxi service licence, a sewing machine, art books, a painting, and a cat sculpture. The central issue was to balance the contributions of both parties and distribute the assets in a manner that was fair and just.

In its reasoning, the court recognised the de facto relationship and found that Pac's contributions, while not financial, were significant in terms of homemaking and care. The court ordered the sale of the taxi service licence, with the proceeds to be paid to Pac up to a specified amount, with any surplus going to Ram. The court also directed Ram to return certain personal items to Pac. The final orders mandated the sale of the taxi licence and the distribution of its proceeds, the return of specific personal items, and that each party bear their own costs. This decision reflects the court's effort to achieve an equitable distribution of assets accumulated during the de facto relationship.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Taxi service licence number 0023081 be sold for market value. Any contract of sale, and any instrument, notice or form of transfer, is to be signed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court (who is hereby so authorised) in lieu of the respondent.

2. The proceeds of the sale referred to in order 1 (less any reasonable expenses of sale) are to be paid to the solicitors for the applicant, Gary Rolfe Solicitors, whose receipt shall be a good discharge to the purchaser.

3. Gary Rolfe is to pay the proceeds of sale referred to at paragraph 2 of this order, in an amount up to $413,000 to the applicant, when those proceeds are received by him. I further direct that if there remain any such proceeds of sale, after the aforesaid payment to the applicant, he is to pay them to the respondent.

4. Should the amount paid to the applicant referred to in order 3 above be less than $413,000, the applicant has liberty to re-list the matter before me for further orders and directions.

5. The respondent, at his own expense, and within 14 days of this order, is to deliver to the solicitors for the applicant the following items of property situated in the house at 4 Chiltern Place, Sandstone Point in the State of Queensland:

(a) a vintage or antique sewing machine belonging to the applicant;

(b) art books belonging to the applicant;

(d) a stone or concrete cat sculpture belonging to the applicant.

6. Each party to these proceedings is to bear that party’s own costs of and incidental to the proceedings.

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.

CATCHWORDS:	DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS – GENERALLY – application for
a property adjustment order under Part 19 of the Property
Law Act 1974 (Qld) – where the parties began living together as man and wife when they were both of mature years – where the relationship lasted for 24 years – where the
applicant wife brought no assets of any significant value to the relationship
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)
FO v HAF [2007] 2 Qd R 138 WB v GSH [2008] QSC 346
COUNSEL:	M P Van Der Walt for the applicant
SOLICITORS:	Gary Rolfe Solicitors for the applicant Respondent in person