Powell v Supresencia

This case concerned an appeal from orders made by an Acting Master concerning the property adjustment of parties in a de facto relationship. The parties, the respondent (born 1956) and the appellant (born 1925), met in the Philippines in 1980 and commenced a de facto relationship. The respondent ceased working at the appellant's request to care for him and their son, born in 1981. The parties lived in the Philippines until 1987, when they moved to Australia and resided in a rented flat for eleven years. Throughout their relationship in both countries, the respondent primarily fulfilled a domestic and caring role, with the appellant providing financial support from his investments.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Acting Master had erred in his assessment of the parties' contributions and the subsequent adjustment of their property interests. Specifically, the court had to consider the weight to be given to the respondent's role as a homemaker and carer, and whether the property adjustment ordered by the Acting Master was just and equitable, having regard to the factors outlined in relevant legislation.

The court found that the Acting Master's orders, which required the defendant to pay the plaintiff $766,000 and declared the defendant the owner of all his property, did not adequately reflect the respondent's contributions. The court reasoned that the respondent's consistent role as a homemaker and carer, undertaken at the appellant's request and with his financial support, constituted a significant contribution to the relationship. The court also noted that the appellant's desire for the respondent to remain at home and care for the family was a key factor.

The appeal was allowed, and the Acting Master's order for the defendant to pay the plaintiff $766,000 was set aside. In its place, the court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $616,000, upon which payment the defendant would be declared the owner of all property registered in his name or possessed by him. The court also confirmed other orders made by the Acting Master regarding the plaintiff's ownership of jewellery and personal effects, and ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, subject to a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951. The respondent's application for maintenance was remitted to the Equity Division for further consideration.