Legal Research
Cases
Paino v Paino

Paino v Paino

Case [2006] NSWSC 218 5 April 2006

De Facto Relationships

Property Settlement

Contributions

Holistic Value Judgment

Family Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Paino v Paino [2006] NSWSC 218

HEARING DATE(S): 07/06/05, 08/06/05, 09/06/05, 10/06/05, 15/06/05, 16/06/05, 17/06/05, 21/06/05, 22/06/05, 23/06/05, 24/06/05, 28/06/05, 29/06/05, 01/07/05, 05/07/05, 06/07/05, 12/07/05, 29/07/05, 13/12/05, 14/12/05

JUDGMENT DATE :
5 April 2006

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Barrett J

DECISION: Defendant to pay plaintiff $2,046,575.90 subject to adjustment

CATCHWORDS: FAMILY LAW - de facto relationships - application by one party for orders adjusting property interests - determination of when relationship began - determination of when relationship ended - determination of dates at which property to be valued - all property owned by defendant - values at various dates agreed - no agreement as to value of land in Queensland - consideration of different views of valuers called by the parties - no agreement as to value of land in Italy - no evidence from which court can decide value of land in Italy - such land left out of account - consideration of parties' respective welfare/homemaker contributions - consideration of plaintiff's claims to have made significant non-financial contribuitions to various businesses owned and operated by defendant - assessment of contributions - decision of what is just and equitable according to holistic value judgment

LEGISLATION CITED: Property (Relationships) Act 1984, ss.4, 5(1), 15(1), 17(1), 18(1), 18(2), 20

CASES CITED: Black v Black (1991) 15 Fam LR 109
Chanter v Catts [2005] NSWCA 411
Dwyer v Kaljo (1987) 11 Fam LR 785
Evans v Marmont (1997) 42 NSWLR 70
Green v Robinson (1995) 36 NSWLR 96
Howlett v Neilson (2005) 33 Fam LR 402
Jones v Grech (2001) 27 Fam LR 711
Kardos v Sarbutt [2006] NSWCA 11
Kelly v Clarke [2001] NSWSC 1010
Livesey v Jenkins [1985] AC 424
Paino v Paino [2005] NSWSC 1313
Paino v Paino [2005] NSWSC 1336
Parker v Parker (1993) 16 Fam LR 863
Parks v Thompson (1997) DFC 95-1
Powell v Supresencia (2003) 30 Fam LR 463
R v Toohey; Ex parte Meneling Station Pty Ltd (1982) 158 CLR 327
Sullman v Sullman [2002] NSWSC 169
Wallace v Stanford (1995) 37 NSWLR 1
White v White [2004] NSWSC 208
Wilson v Vine [2003] NSWSC 341

PARTIES: Angela Paino - Plaintiff
Salvatore Paino - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5612/01

COUNSEL: Mr I.G. Harrison SC/ Mrs M.T. Bridger - Plaintiff
Mr P. Hallen SC/Mr J.J. Millar - Defendant

SOLICITORS: Kells The Lawyers - Plaintiff
Meyer Pigdon - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BARRETT J

WEDNESDAY, 5 APRIL 2006

5612/01 ANGELA PAINO v SALVATORE PAINO

JUDGMENT

Preliminary

1 By her amended statement of claim filed on 16 December 2003 (the original statement of claim having been filed on 21 November 2001), the plaintiff claims orders adjusting the interests of the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to property. The claim is made under Part 3 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984.

2 As to jurisdictional prerequisites, it is accepted by the parties that they were both resident within New South Wales at relevant times (s.15(1)) and that they lived…

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 Paino v Paino

Details

AGLC: Paino v Paino [2006] NSWSC 218
Case: [2006] NSWSC 218
Decision Date: 5 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Paino v Paino, the court was tasked with addressing a dispute between two former de facto partners concerning the division of their property interests. The parties, referred to as the plaintiff and defendant, had cohabited and raised children together. The plaintiff sought orders to adjust the property interests between the parties, with the core issues being the determination of the commencement and cessation dates of their relationship, and the valuation of various properties owned by the defendant.

The court had to decide whether the relationship began and ended on specific dates as alleged by the plaintiff. The court also needed to establish the dates at which the property should be valued, given that the parties had agreed on the values at various dates but disagreed on the valuation of land in Queensland and Italy. Additionally, the court had to consider the contributions made by the plaintiff to the defendant's businesses and assess their respective welfare contributions, including those of a homemaker.

After evaluating the evidence, the court determined that the relationship began on one date and ended on another, based on the testimonies and circumstances presented. The court also decided the dates at which the property should be valued. In regard to the valuation of the land in Queensland, the court preferred the valuation of one expert over the other, as it found it more reliable. However, the court could not ascertain the value of the land in Italy due to the lack of evidence, and therefore excluded it from the property pool. The court then assessed the contributions made by both parties and determined that the plaintiff's non-financial contributions were significant. The court ultimately made a decision that was just and equitable, taking into account the holistic value judgment of the case.

The court ordered that the property be divided between the parties according to the findings made, and that the defendant pay a certain amount to the plaintiff as compensation for the unequal contributions made during the relationship. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's legal costs.

Orders