SJS v Mls

[2010] QSC 263

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

SJS v MLS [2010] QSC 263

PARTIES:

SJS
(applicant)

v

MLS
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS9502 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 July 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 July 2010

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

THE APPLICANT IS TO BRING IN MINUTES OF ORDER

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – RELATIONSHIP – where the parties were in a de facto relationship from October 2001 to January 2008 – where there were two brief periods of separation – where the parties have three young children – where the applicant has sole or primary caring responsibility – where the parties have disparate earning potential – whether the Supreme Court of Queensland can make orders in respect of real property on Norfolk Island – whether the applicant’s parents’ interest in a property should preclude it from the relevant pool – whether a costs order should be made notwithstanding the provisions of s 341 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)

Property Law Act 1974, Part 19

Clauson v Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595
FO v HOF [2007] 2 Qd R 138

W v W (1997) FLC 92-723

COUNSEL:

J McClymont for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Eliadis and Associates for the applicant

[1] The applicant seeks orders under Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (PLA). Both parties have filed affidavits but the respondent, who lives on Norfolk Island, did not appear at the hearing.

The relationship

[2]      The parties were in a de facto relationship from October 2001 to January 2008 with two brief periods of separation in 2006 and 2007. They have three children aged 2, 4 and 7. The children are cared for by the applicant.

[3]      When the relationship commenced the parties lived in a house owned by the respondent on Norfolk Island. At that time, apart from the respondent’s house, the parties had very few assets. While living on Norfolk Island the respondent worked as a full-time gardener and would operate a water truck business before and after work when there was a demand for water. For various periods, the applicant had full-time, part-time and casual work as a chef.

[4]      At some time in 2004 or 2005 the parties purchased a retail shop business in which they sold nursery items, produce, supplies, fruit and vegetables. The money used to purchase the business was raised by increasing the mortgage over the Norfolk Island property. In order to assist in establishing the business, the applicant worked part-time in the nursery without pay.

[5]      In June 2006, the applicant moved into her parent’s house in Kippa Ring. She says this was because the parties had separated. The respondent denies this but it is of no moment in determining this matter. The parties also disagree about when they sold the nursery business and its price. I will deal with this later.

[6]      The respondent claims to…