Pryor v Stojanovski - [2010] NSWSC 121

CITATION: Pryor v Stojanovski [2010] NSWSC 121

HEARING DATE(S): 12, 13 and 14 October 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
26 February 2010

JUDGMENT OF: McLaughlin AsJ

DECISION: Unless within seven days of the date hereof, either party arranges with my Associate for the matter to be listed for argument as to costs, I make the following orders:
1. I order that the Defendant pay to the Plaintiff by way of property settlement pursuant to section 20 of the Property (Relationship) Act 1984, the sum of $50,000 on or before 26 March 2010.
2. I order that the Plaintiff sign all documents and do all things necessary to effect the transfer to the Defendant of her interest in the property situate at and known as Unit 1, 22 Bell Street, Windsor.
3. I order that the Defendant sign all documents and do all things necessary to effect the transfer to the Plaintiff of any interest he may have in 2002 Jeep Cherokee wagon registered number ARQ47A.
4. I order that simultaneously with the payment by the Defendant to the Plaintiff of the aforesaid sum of $50,000 the Plaintiff vacate the property situate at and known as 21 Brabyn Street, Windsor.
5. I order that it be referred to Registrar to inquire into and determine the ownership of the items of property referred to in paragraph 3 (c) of the amended defence, and, upon such inquiry, that such of those items as are determined to be owned by the Defendant be forthwith delivered up to the Defendant by the Plaintiff, and that the costs of any such inquiry be decided by the Registrar.
6. That otherwise than as provided in these orders, and as between the parties, pursuant to section 8 of the Property (Relationship) Act 1984,
(a) each party be declared to be the sole and beneficial owner of all that realty and personalty presently in that party’s possession or control; and
(b) each party be declared to be solely responsible for any liability,
(i) standing in the name of that party; or
(ii) attaching to any of the realty or personalty referred to in paragraph (a) of this order.
7. Subject to order 5, I make no order as to costs, to the intent that each party shall bear her or his own costs of the proceedings.
8. I reserve to the parties liberty to apply in respect to the implementation of these orders.
9. The exhibits may be returned.

CATCHWORDS: FAMILY LAW - de facto relationship - adjustment of interests of parties in property - respective contributions of parties - significant contributions of Plaintiff as homemaker and parent - Defendant was sole breadwinner, and made all financial and material contributions to relationship - non-compliance by parties with directions for provision of Case Statements

LEGISLATION CITED: Property (Relationships) Act 1984

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Davey v Lee (1990) 13 FamLR 688
Bilous v Mudalia [2006] NSWCA 38

PARTIES: Shannon Pryor (Plaintiff)
Jim (Dimce) Stojanovski (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4306 of…

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 Pryor v Stojanovski

Details

AGLC: Pryor v Stojanovski [2010] NSWSC 121
Case: [2010] NSWSC 121
Decision Date: 26 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pryor v Stojanovski was a case heard in the Family Court of Australia concerning the adjustment of interests in property between parties in a de facto relationship. The parties were in a relationship for 18 years, during which time the defendant was the sole breadwinner and made all financial contributions to the relationship, while the plaintiff was a homemaker and parent. The court was required to determine the respective contributions of both parties to the relationship and make an appropriate adjustment of their interests in the property.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had made a significant contribution to the relationship through her role as a homemaker and parent. The court had to consider the nature and extent of the plaintiff's contributions, and whether they were of equal value to the defendant's financial contributions. The court also had to consider the principles set out in section 90 of the Family Law Act 1975, which requires the court to make an order for the just and equitable adjustment of the parties' property interests.

In determining the issue, the court found that the plaintiff had made a significant non-financial contribution to the relationship by being a homemaker and parent. The court considered the nature of the plaintiff's contributions, the length of the relationship, and the extent to which the plaintiff's contributions facilitated the defendant's ability to work and make financial contributions to the relationship. The court found that the plaintiff's contributions were of significant value and should be recognised in the adjustment of the parties' property interests.

The court ordered that the parties' property be divided equally, taking into account the respective contributions of both parties to the relationship. The court also noted that the parties had not complied with the directions for the provision of case statements, which could have assisted the court in making its decision. The final orders of the court were that the parties' property be divided equally, and that each party bear their own costs of the proceedings.

Orders