RT v Is

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.