SBB v WMM - [2011] QSC 296

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

SBB v WMM [2011] QSC 296

PARTIES:

SBB
(applicant)
v
WMM
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS1523 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating application

DELIVERED ON:

5 October 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 July 2011

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

Adjourn the proceeding to a date to be fixed for submissions on the form of the orders and the costs of the proceeding

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS – GENERALLY – where parties in a de facto relationship for four years with no children in the household – where parties were agreed as to the value of assets to be divided, but not the apportionment of the assets – where respondent’s financial contributions were greater than the applicant’s financial contributions – where contribution of the respondent as homemaker and carer was significant – whether the adjustment of the agreed assets in the proportions of 40% to the applicant and 60% to the respondent was just and equitable

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 79
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 286, s 292, s 296, s 305, s 309

FO v HAF [2006] QCA 555; [2007] 2 Qd R 138, followed

COUNSEL:

J W Selfridge for the applicant
T F Jordan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Berck & Associates for the applicant
Bennett Carroll Solicitors for the respondent

The parties were de facto partners for about four years from December 2004. The applicant is now 58 years old and the respondent is 60 years old. The applicant applies for a property adjustment order pursuant to s 286 of the Property Law Act 1974 (PLA). The parties have identified the assets that have to be divided between them and are agreed on the values of those assets. What they have been unable to agree upon are their respective contributions to the relationship and the impact of other factors relevant to the assessment of a just and equitable division of their assets.

Approach to the evidence

Where the parties have not agreed on the value of assets contributed to the relationship or the quantification of non-financial contributions to the relationship, it has been necessary to make findings on disputed evidence. It was apparent during the hearing that each party had a tendency to overvalue his or her own contribution and undervalue the contribution of the other party. The cross-examination of each party was mainly for the purpose of highlighting this tendency. I identify in these reasons where it has been necessary to address this tendency to resolve the differences between the parties.

History of the relationship

When the parties met in January 2004, the applicant worked as a miner and lived in Biloela in a rented apartment and the respondent worked as a nurse’s aid and lived on the Sunshine Coast in her own home which was unencumbered. The applicant earned approximately $2,350 gross per week. The applicant owned land in a coastal town which was mortgaged and…

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 SBB v WMM

Details

AGLC: SBB v WMM [2011] QSC 296
Case: [2011] QSC 296
Decision Date: 5 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of SBB v WMM involved a dispute between former de facto partners, SBB and WMM, over the division of their property interests. The parties had been in a relationship for four years and had no children. Despite the absence of children, the relationship's duration was sufficient for the court to consider it in its assessment of the property division. The primary point of contention was the division of the agreed value of assets, as the parties were in agreement about the total value but disagreed on the apportionment.

The legal issues before the court were whether the adjustment of the agreed assets in the proportions of 40% to SBB and 60% to WMM was just and equitable, considering the greater financial contributions by WMM and the significant non-financial contributions of WMM as a homemaker and carer. The court had to balance these contributions against the financial contributions of SBB to determine an equitable distribution of the assets.

In reaching its decision, the court recognised the importance of the non-financial contributions of WMM, which played a crucial role in the relationship's stability and success. The court considered these contributions alongside the financial contributions of both parties and concluded that the proposed division of 40% to SBB and 60% to WMM was just and equitable. This decision acknowledged the significant role of WMM as a homemaker and carer, which, in the court's view, warranted a more substantial share of the assets.

The court adjourned the proceedings to allow for submissions on the form of the orders and the costs of the proceeding, indicating that further details would be addressed in subsequent hearings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Adjourn the proceeding to a date to be fixed for submissions on the form of the orders and the costs of the proceeding

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:	SBB v WMM [2011] QSC 296
PARTIES:	SBB (applicant) v WMM (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS1523 of 2010
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Originating application
DELIVERED ON:	5 October 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 July 2011
JUDGE:	Mullins J
ORDER:	Adjourn the proceeding to a date to be fixed for submissions on the form of the orders and the costs of the proceeding
CATCHWORDS:	FAMILY LAW – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS – GENERALLY – where parties in a de facto relationship for four years with no children in the household – where parties were agreed as to the value of assets to be divided, but not the apportionment of the assets – where respondent’s financial contributions were greater than the applicant’s financial contributions – where contribution of the respondent as homemaker and carer was significant – whether the adjustment of the agreed assets in the proportions of 40% to the applicant and 60% to the respondent was just and equitable Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 79 Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 286, s 292, s 296, s 305, s 309 FO v HAF [2006] QCA 555; [2007] 2 Qd R 138, followed
COUNSEL:	J W Selfridge for the applicant T F Jordan for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Berck & Associates for the applicant Bennett Carroll Solicitors for the respondent