RFB v UEB - [2005] QSC 178

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

RFB v UEB [2005] QSC 178

PARTIES:

RFB
(applicant)
v
UEB
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 1824 of 2003

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 July 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 and 28 April 2005

JUDGE:

White J

ORDERS:

1.    The monies in the Short, Punch and Greatorix trust account in the sum of $51,599.00, or such other sum as may be there at the time of division, be divided equally between the parties.

2.    The monies standing to the credit of the parties in the UB Unit Trust when recovered from the settlement of the sale of the premises at 80-82 Upton Street, Bundall be divided between the parties

a.    as to the loan account after the payment of the balance amount owed to Rapcivic Pty Ltd 35% to Mr B and 65% to Ms B;

b.   as to the Superannuation Fund in the percentages recorded in the accounts of the Superannuation Fund inclusive of the residual rental received.

3.    The chattels described in Exhibit 7 be divided in the manner agreed between the parties and as set out in the letter of 18 May 2005 from Mr B’s solicitors and attached to these orders.

4.    The parties otherwise retain their respective real and personal property free of all claims from each other.

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – LEGISLATION – property settlement under Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) – where de facto relationship for 19 years – initial contribution of both parties – proportion of financial and non-financial contribution throughout relationship – extent of applicant’s involvement in respondent’s business – proportion of parties’ contribution to properties bought, constructed and maintained – just and equitable property distribution

Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 255, s 286, s 289, ss 291-293
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 90MC

Practice Direction No 33 of 1999—Property Law Act s 289

E v S [2003] QSC 378, cited
JEL and DDF [2000] FAM CA 1353, cited
Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605, cited
McLay (1996) FLC 92-667, cited
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513, cited
S v B [2004] QSC 804, cited
S v B [2004] QCA 449, cited

COUNSEL:

Mr C Cooper solicitor for the applicant
Mr I Erskine for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Primrose Cooper Cronin Rudkin for the applicant
Peter J Sheehy for the respondent

The applicant has applied to the court by originating application for declarations and orders pursuant to Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (“the Act”).

By order of the court the parties have filed pleadings and otherwise proceeded as if the matter was commenced by claim although no formal order to that effect seems to have been made. The applicant has tended to describe the parties as “plaintiff” and “defendant” while the respondent has retained the description “applicant” and “respondent”. It will be convenient…

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 RFB v UEB

Details

AGLC: RFB v UEB [2005] QSC 178
Case: [2005] QSC 178
Decision Date: 8 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of RFB v UEB, the parties, who had been in a de facto relationship for 19 years, came before the court to resolve disputes relating to the division of their property under Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld). The key issues before the court were the nature and extent of the financial and non-financial contributions made by each party throughout the relationship, their involvement in the respondent's business, and the contributions to properties bought, constructed, and maintained during the relationship. The court was tasked with determining a just and equitable distribution of the assets in accordance with the statutory provisions.

The court considered the initial and ongoing contributions of both parties, examining not only their financial inputs but also their non-financial contributions, such as domestic labour and care for children. It evaluated the extent to which the applicant was involved in the respondent's business and how this involvement contributed to the overall financial success of the relationship. Additionally, the court assessed the proportion of contributions to the various properties acquired and maintained by the couple. The court applied the principles set out in the Property Law Act to ensure that the division of assets reflected a fair and equitable outcome, taking into account the entire course of the relationship.

Following its analysis, the court determined the division of the assets in a manner that it deemed just and equitable. It ordered the division of specific monies and properties in the proportions it found appropriate, ensuring that the contributions and needs of both parties were fairly balanced. The orders included the equal division of certain trust account funds, a specific division of the UB Unit Trust funds, and the division of listed chattels in accordance with an agreement between the parties. The court also clarified that each party would retain their personal property free from claims by the other.

The final orders reflect the court's determination, providing a clear framework for the division of the parties' assets, ensuring that both parties' contributions and needs have been fairly considered.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The monies in the Short, Punch and Greatorix trust account in the sum of $51,599.00, or such other sum as may be there at the time of division, be divided equally between the parties.

2. The monies standing to the credit of the parties in the UB Unit Trust when recovered from the settlement of the sale of the premises at 80-82 Upton Street, Bundall be divided between the parties

a. as to the loan account after the payment of the balance amount owed to Rapcivic Pty Ltd 35% to Mr B and 65% to Ms B;

b. as to the Superannuation Fund in the percentages recorded in the accounts of the Superannuation Fund inclusive of the residual rental received.

3. The chattels described in Exhibit 7 be divided in the manner agreed between the parties and as set out in the letter of 18 May 2005 from Mr B’s solicitors and attached to these orders.

4. The parties otherwise retain their respective real and personal property free of all claims from each other.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	RFB v UEB [2005] QSC 178
PARTIES:	RFB (applicant) v UEB (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 1824 of 2003
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	8 July 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 and 28 April 2005
JUDGE:	White J
ORDERS:	1. The monies in the Short, Punch and Greatorix trust account in the sum of $51,599.00, or such other sum as may be there at the time of division, be divided equally between the parties. 2. The monies standing to the credit of the parties in the UB Unit Trust when recovered from the settlement of the sale of the premises at 80-82 Upton Street, Bundall be divided between the parties a. as to the loan account after the payment of the balance amount owed to Rapcivic Pty Ltd 35% to Mr B and 65% to Ms B; b. as to the Superannuation Fund in the percentages recorded in the accounts of the Superannuation Fund inclusive of the residual rental received. 3. The chattels described in Exhibit 7 be divided in the manner agreed between the parties and as set out in the letter of 18 May 2005 from Mr B’s solicitors and attached to these orders. 4. The parties otherwise retain their respective real and personal property free of all claims from each other.
CATCHWORDS:	FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – LEGISLATION – property settlement under Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) – where de facto relationship for 19 years – initial contribution of both parties – proportion of financial and non-financial contribution throughout relationship – extent of applicant’s involvement in respondent’s business – proportion of parties’ contribution to properties bought, constructed and maintained – just and equitable property distribution Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 255, s 286, s 289, ss 291-293 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 90MC Practice Direction No 33 of 1999—Property Law Act s 289 E v S [2003] QSC 378, cited JEL and DDF [2000] FAM CA 1353, cited Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605, cited McLay (1996) FLC 92-667, cited Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513, cited S v B [2004] QSC 804, cited S v B [2004] QCA 449, cited
COUNSEL:	Mr C Cooper solicitor for the applicant Mr I Erskine for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Primrose Cooper Cronin Rudkin for the applicant Peter J Sheehy for the respondent