Prymas v Whittaker

[2006] ACTSC 48

VICKI THERESE ANNE PRYMAS v ROBERT CHRISTOPHER WHITTAKER [2006] ACTSC 48 (19 MAY 2006)

FAMILY LAW – DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIPS – adjustment of property rights – plaintiff’s significant contributions to the major asset of the relationship.
EVIDENCE – whether unpaid overtime asserted as owing to a party can properly be taken into account in assessing the property of the relationship.

Domestic Relationships Act 1994 (ACT), s 3, s 11, s 12, s 13, s 15, s 19

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 79, s 90MC

Ferris v Winslade (1998) 22 Fam LR 725

In the Marriage of Hickey (2003) 30 Fam LR 355
In the Marriage of R K and R Jordan (1996) 21 Fam LR 382

Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242
In the marriage of Money (1994) 17 Fam LR 814
In the marriage of Pierce (1998) 24 Fam LR 377

No. SC 423 of  2004

Judge:             Gray J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              19 May 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 423 of  2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

BETWEEN:VICKI THERESE ANNE PRYMAS

Plaintiff

AND:ROBERT CHRISTOPHER WHITTAKER

Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Gray J
Date:  19 May 2006
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The parties be further heard in light of the findings contained in this judgment.

1. The plaintiff, Vicki Therese Ann Prymas, applies to the court for orders for adjustment of property interests of her and her former partner, Robert Christopher Whittaker, the defendant. The application, which was made on 16 June 2004, is made pursuant to s 15 of the Domestic Relationships Act 1994 (ACT) (the Domestic Relationships Act).

The relationship and some material matters

1. The plaintiff and the defendant commenced their relationship at some point between late 1982 and early 1983.  At that time, both were in their early twenties and the plaintiff was employed as a telephonist with Telecom, while the defendant worked as a sales representative with Repco.

1. While living with her parents in late 1982, the plaintiff had discovered that she was pregnant with the defendant’s child and subsequently she rented a house in Watson in November 1982.  The defendant stayed overnight at those premises most of the time and moved in to live there in February 1983.  In late 1982, the plaintiff was 20 years of age, the defendant 23 years.

1. During 1983, and for the duration of the relationship, the defendant remained in full-time employment.  The plaintiff ceased work shortly before the birth of the couple’s first child, Steven, in mid-1983.  After taking six months maternity leave, the plaintiff attempted to return to work, but resigned one month later, and thereafter became primarily responsible for domestic duties, including the care of their child.  By arrangement between the parties, the plaintiff did not recommence full-time employment until 1997, when the couple’s second child, Jonathan, who was born on 26 November 1987, began attending secondary school.  However, before this time she undertook some part-time employment by way of baby-sitting, day care, foster care,…