RT v Is - [2007] QSC 153

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

RT v IS [2007] QSC 153

PARTIES:

RT
(applicant)
v
IS
(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS3008 of 2004

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 June, 2007.

DELIVERED AT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4, 5, 6, 9, 10 October 2006

JUDGE:

Douglas J

ORDER:

That the property pool be adjusted 60:40 in favour of the applicant
Further submissions invited as to the form of the order and as to costs

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – ADJUSTMENT FOR PROPERTY INTERESTS – APPLICATIONS - where the applicant applied for a property adjustment order under the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) – where the applicant contributed more capital to the parties’ properties – whether the work done by the parties in improving and managing their properties should be treated as equivalent – where the applicant suffered stress affecting her ability to work partly as a result of the conduct of the respondent – whether costs should be taken into account in dividing the property pool.

Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), ss 291-309
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cwlth)

FO v HAF [2006] QCA 555, considered
Kardos v Sarbutt (2006) 34 Fam LR 550, cited
KQ v HAE [2006] QCA 489, cited
S v B (No 2)(2004) 32 Fam LR 429; [2004] QCA 449, cited

COUNSEL:

Mrs S Anderson for the applicant
The respondent in person

SOLICITORS:

Emerson Black Lawyers for the applicant
The respondent in person

Douglas J: The parties were de facto partners at least between 2 May 1997 and 4 April 2002. The applicant, the female partner, was born on 16 April 1964 while the respondent was born on 13 April 1966. There were no children of the relationship. This application is one to declare their rights in the property relevant to their relationship. I shall discuss the evidence as much as possible by reference to the relevant issues referred to in ss 291-309 of the Property Law Act 1974.

Length of the relationship

The applicant’s case was that the relationship began in May 1997 and concluded on 4 April 2002 although she continued to live under the same roof as the respondent until, at the latest, 15 May 2004. There was no dispute about when the relationship began. The applicant ceased sleeping in the same house as the respondent in January 2004 but kept much of her property there and used it during the day. Her view was that the relationship ceased in April 2002. It was not shared by the respondent who believed it lasted to the end of 2003 or the beginning of 2004. In either case the statutory period required to give rise to the Court’s jurisdiction is met.

The applicant’s evidence was that the respondent commenced other relationships in about April 2002 bringing their relationship to an end. It seems that there were several attempts at reconciliation between the parties which,…

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 RT v Is

Details

AGLC: RT v Is [2007] QSC 153
Case: [2007] QSC 153
Decision Date: 25 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an application by RT for a property adjustment order in respect of properties held by herself and IS. The applicants were in a de facto relationship and had jointly owned properties over which RT sought a greater share. The Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate division of property interests between the parties.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the work done by both parties in improving and managing the properties should be considered equivalent, and whether the stress and resultant impairment of RT’s ability to work, partially attributable to IS’s conduct, should be factored into the property adjustment. Additionally, the court had to consider whether costs incurred by RT should be taken into account in dividing the property pool.

The court examined the contributions made by each party, both in terms of capital and labour, to the properties. It found that RT contributed a significantly larger proportion of the capital and, while both parties had contributed to the upkeep and management of the properties, their efforts were not equivalent. Furthermore, the court recognised that the stress RT suffered, partially due to IS’s conduct, was a significant factor impacting her ability to contribute financially. The court also noted that while costs incurred by RT were relevant, they did not outweigh the other factors considered. Consequently, the court decided to adjust the property pool in a ratio of 60:40 in favour of RT, reflecting the disparity in contributions and the impact of IS’s conduct.

In light of the decision, the court invited further submissions regarding the form of the final order and the allocation of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the property pool be adjusted 60:40 in favour of the applicant

Further submissions invited as to the form of the order and as to costs

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:	RT v IS [2007] QSC 153
PARTIES:	RT (applicant) v IS (respondent)
FILE NO:	BS3008 of 2004
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	25 June, 2007.
DELIVERED AT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4, 5, 6, 9, 10 October 2006
JUDGE:	Douglas J
ORDER:	That the property pool be adjusted 60:40 in favour of the applicant Further submissions invited as to the form of the order and as to costs
CATCHWORDS:	FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – ADJUSTMENT FOR PROPERTY INTERESTS – APPLICATIONS - where the applicant applied for a property adjustment order under the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) – where the applicant contributed more capital to the parties’ properties – whether the work done by the parties in improving and managing their properties should be treated as equivalent – where the applicant suffered stress affecting her ability to work partly as a result of the conduct of the respondent – whether costs should be taken into account in dividing the property pool. Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), ss 291-309 Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cwlth) FO v HAF [2006] QCA 555, considered Kardos v Sarbutt (2006) 34 Fam LR 550, cited KQ v HAE [2006] QCA 489, cited S v B (No 2)(2004) 32 Fam LR 429; [2004] QCA 449, cited
COUNSEL:	Mrs S Anderson for the applicant The respondent in person
SOLICITORS:	Emerson Black Lawyers for the applicant The respondent in person