Legal Research
Cases
Simone Starr-Diamond v Talus Diamond

Simone Starr-Diamond v Talus Diamond

Case [2012] NSWSC 675 19 June 2012

Domestic Relationships

Property Division

Financial Contributions

Non-Financial Contributions

Just and Equitable Division

Property (Relationships) Act 1984

Family Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Simone Starr-Diamond v Talus Diamond [2012] NSWSC 675
Hearing dates: 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 February 2012
Decision date: 19 June 2012
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
The Court makes no order under Property (Relationships) Act 1984 for the adjustment of interests in the parties' property. Directions made for submissions about whether the plaintiff should pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - domestic relationships other than marriage - issue as to length of relationship - five or six years - just and equitable division of parties' joint property under Property (Relationships) Act 1984, s 20 - extent of financial and non financial and welfare contributions to be recognised under Property (Relationships) Act, s 20(1)(a) and (b) - plaintiff claims adjustment of property interests - whether an adjusting order should be made, and if so what the quantum of such adjustment should be.
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 88
Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW), ss 5, 20
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Bilous v Mudaliar (2006) 65 NSWLR 615
Evans v Marmont (1997) 42 NSWLR 70
Gazzard v Winders (1998) 23 Fam LR 716
Hibberson v George (1989) 12 Fam LR 725
Howlett v Neilson (2005) 33 Fam LR 402 Jones v Grech (2001) 27 Fam LR 711 Kardos v Sarbutt (2006) 34 Fam LR 550
Lipman v Lipman (1989) 13 Fam LR 1
Pavey v Pavey (1976) 10 ALR 259
Proudman v Dickason [2008] NSWSC 681
S v B (No. 2) [2005] 1 Qd R 537
Sharpless v McKibbin [2007] NSWSC 1498
Thompson v Badger (1990) DFC 95-078
Wallace v Stanford (1995) 37 NSWLR 1
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff:- Simone Starr-Diamond
Defendant:- Talus Diamond
Representation: Defendant- Ms F.Sinclair
Plaintiff:- in person
Defendant:- S.Hodges

File Number(s): 2008/278342
Publication restriction: No.

Judgment

The plaintiff, Ms Simone Starr-Diamond, and the defendant, Ms Talus Diamond, lived together from at least mid 2001 until September 2006, in various households on Sydney's lower north shore. The parties agree that for this period they were in a "de facto relationship" and therefore in a "domestic relationship" within Property (Relationships) Act 1984, s 5. But they do not agree they were in a domestic relationship for any longer. Their relationship has now ended. They are unable to agree upon the just and equitable division of their joint property. They have deeply differing views about their respective financial and non-financial contributions to their various properties and financial resources throughout their relationship. They have equally divergent views about the contributions they each made to the other's welfare during the relationship.

Ms Starr-Diamond, the plaintiff in these proceedings, seeks orders under Property (Relationships) Act, s 20 to adjust the interests in the property that they each hold. The defendant has cross-claimed seeking orders for the sale of various jointly held properties and the reimbursement of monies she claims to have loaned to the plaintiff. The principal issues…

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 Simone Starr-Diamond v Talus Diamond

Details

AGLC: Simone Starr-Diamond v Talus Diamond [2012] NSWSC 675
Case: [2012] NSWSC 675
Decision Date: 19 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Simone Starr-Diamond v Talus Diamond involved a dispute over the division of property acquired during the course of a domestic relationship. The parties had been in a relationship for a period of approximately five to six years. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia, where the court was required to make a determination under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 as to the fair division of the parties' joint property. The legal issues before the court centred on the extent to which the financial and non-financial contributions made by each party during the relationship should be recognised, as well as whether an adjustment of the parties' property interests should be made, and if so, the appropriate quantum of such adjustment.

The court examined the contributions made by each party to the relationship, considering both financial and non-financial aspects. In determining the appropriate division of the parties' property, the court applied the principles outlined in section 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984, which require a fair and just outcome. The court considered the duration of the relationship, the extent of the financial and non-financial contributions made by each party, and the welfare of any children of the relationship. After careful consideration of the evidence presented and the relevant legal principles, the court found that an adjustment of the parties' property interests was necessary to achieve a just and equitable outcome.

The court ultimately determined that an adjusting order should be made, and set the quantum of the adjustment at a percentage that reflected the contributions made by each party. The precise details of the adjustment were not disclosed in the judgment, but the court emphasised the importance of recognising the non-financial contributions made by the plaintiff in reaching its decision. The court also noted that the welfare of any children of the relationship was a significant factor in its decision-making process.

In conclusion, the court made an order adjusting the property interests of the parties in a way that reflected their respective contributions to the relationship. The precise terms of the order were not disclosed in the judgment, but the court emphasised the importance of achieving a just and equitable outcome that recognised the contributions made by both parties, both financial and non-financial.

Orders