Parsons v Storm - [2009] NSWSC 166

CITATION: Parsons v Storm [2009] NSWSC 166

HEARING DATE(S): 11 and 12 March 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
12 March 2009

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Palmer J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 12 March 2009

DECISION: Judgment for the Defendant on substance of Statement of Claim and on Cross Claim.

CATCHWORDS: PROPERTY RELATIONSHIPS – Parties in de facto relationship contributed equally to acquisition of residence – title in names of both as joint tenants – no agreement or common intention after separation as to how property should be dealt with – circumstances of parties equal. - HELD: No reason to adjust property rights under s 20 Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW).

LEGISLATION CITED: Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) – s 14(1), s 15(1), s 15(2), s 17(1), s 18(2), s 20

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: - Baker v Towle [2008] NSWCA 73
- Beavan v Fallshaw (1992) 15 Fam LR 686
- Bilous v Mudaliar (2006) 65 NSWLR 615
- Kardos v Sarbutt [2006] NSWCA 11
- Paino v Paino [2006] NSWSC 218

PARTIES: Christopher Leo Parsons (Plaintiff)
Ann Louise Storm (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1027/06

COUNSEL: A.D.B. Fox (Plaintiff)
M.J. Watts (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Blanchfield Nicholls Partners (Plaintiff)
Ireland Lawyers (Defendant)

PALMER J.

1027/06 Parsons v Storm

JUDGMENT – Ex tempore

12 March, 2009
1 The Plaintiff and the Defendant lived in a de facto relationship between about May 1995 and January 2000. There were no children of the relationship. The parties brought to their relationship assets of about equal value. They were both employed and had about the same income. They contributed equally to their living expenses. 2 In 1995, after they had commenced their relationship, they purchased as joint tenants a residential property at Botany in which they lived. They borrowed jointly to finance the purchase and by the time the relationship came to an end they had contributed equally to mortgage repayments and other expenses relating to that property. They agree that their contributions to the equity in the Botany property are approximately equal. 3 When the parties' relationship ended in early 2000 they endeavoured to reach an agreement about the disposition of the Botany property. They obtained a real estate agent's valuation which put the property at $700,000. On that basis, their nett equity was then about $503,000. The Plaintiff says that they reached an informal agreement to the effect that he would purchase the Defendant's half interest in the property for a little more than half the value of the nett equity, i.e. $260,000. 4 The Plaintiff says that, by 26 June 2000, the Defendant had received the sum of $251,800 which is almost exactly the amount which she ought to have received. 5 No document evidencing the agreement was signed and neither party did anything to transfer title to the property into the Plaintiff's sole name. 6 In May 2003, the Plaintiff sold the property for $1,210,000. The Defendant denied that an agreement for sale of her interest had been concluded and she required…

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 Parsons v Storm

Details

AGLC: Parsons v Storm [2009] NSWSC 166
Case: [2009] NSWSC 166
Decision Date: 12 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Parsons and Storm were a couple who had been in a de facto relationship. They purchased a residence together and held the property as joint tenants. After they separated, they did not reach an agreement on how to divide the property. They both claimed an equal share of the property. The dispute was brought before the court to determine how the property should be divided. The court had to decide whether there was an agreement or common intention between the parties regarding the division of the property and whether the circumstances warranted any adjustment of the property rights. The court also had to consider the provisions of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW).

The court found that there was no agreement or common intention between the parties regarding the division of the property after their separation. It was also determined that the circumstances of the parties were equal. Therefore, there was no reason to adjust the property rights under section 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW). The court held that the property should be divided equally between Parsons and Storm. The court emphasised the importance of the parties' equal contributions to the acquisition of the property and the lack of any agreement or common intention regarding the division of the property after their separation.

The court ordered that the property be divided equally between Parsons and Storm. The court held that there was no reason to adjust the property rights under section 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW). The court's decision was based on the equal contributions of both parties to the acquisition of the property and the absence of any agreement or common intention regarding the division of the property after their separation.

Orders