Slater v Challenor - [2006] NSWSC 1064

CITATION: Slater v Challenor [2006] NSWSC 1064

HEARING DATE(S): 10/10/06

JUDGMENT DATE :
18 October 2006

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Associate Justice Macready at 1

DECISION: Paragraph 40

CATCHWORDS: Family law. Application for adjustment of parties' property under s20 of Property Relationships Act 1984 (NSW). No matter of principle.

PARTIES: Peter Henry Slater v Dianne Lorraine Challenor

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5136/2005

COUNSEL: Mr PJ Livingstone for the plaintiff
Mr JF Heazlewood for the defendant

SOLICITORS: Alfred J Morgan & Son for plaintiff
Stormers Lawyers for defendant

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

Associate Justice Macready

Wednesday 18 October 2006

5136/05 Peter Henry Slater v Dianne Lorraine Challenor

JUDGMENT

1 His Honour: This is the hearing of a claim for adjustment of the parties property interests under section 20 of the Property Relationships Act 1984 (NSW). The parties lived together in a de facto relationship between either July or October 1996 until January 2004. There were no children of the relationship but each party had children from previous marriages.

2 During the course of the relationship the defendant’s son, John Anthony Harris, born on 6 February 1983, resided with the parties for most of the relationship. The defendant’s daughter also resided there with her family for a period of about two years. The plaintiff’s son also resided there for a short time of three months.

Background history

3 The plaintiff was born on 29 March 1942 and is aged 64. The defendant was born on 3 November 1951 and is aged 54.

4 On 27 July 1981 the plaintiff was employed at the Australian Broadcasting Commission where he has remained ever since. His present position is Senior Stores and Logistics Officer.

5 The parties first met in 1995 and in 1996 their cohabitation commenced. In cross examination neither party addressed whether it was July or October and the matter was not treated by them as important.

6 On 6 November 1997 contracts were exchanged on the joint purchase of a property at 79 Eastern Valley Way, Castlecrag, for a price of $380,000. The plaintiff contributed $209,355 and the total acquisition cost was $396,893. This equates to 52.54% of the purchase cost. The plaintiff also paid an occupation fee of $1,697.14. The property was registered in the names of both of the parties and both parties were mortgagors for the mortgage of $190,000.

7 On 22 December 1997 there was settlement of plaintiff’s family law property matter and he received $216,556.66 which was used mostly for the payment of the balance of the purchase price.

8 In 2001 the plaintiff’s son, Phillip, lived with the parties for three months, according to the defendant.

9 On 31 December 2001 the plaintiff injured his neck when he fell over walking home from the club and was off work on “full sick pay”. He resumed work during 2002.

10 In September 2002 the plaintiff purchased a Ford Festiva for $6,300 with funds borrowed from Resources Credit…

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 Slater v Challenor

Details

AGLC: Slater v Challenor [2006] NSWSC 1064
Case: [2006] NSWSC 1064
Decision Date: 18 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Slater v Challenor involved a dispute over the adjustment of property settlement between the parties, Slater and Challenor. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the court should adjust the property settlement in accordance with section 20 of the Property Relationships Act 1984 (NSW). The court needed to determine the appropriate division of the parties' property and whether the initial settlement was fair and just.

The legal issue centred on the interpretation and application of section 20 of the Property Relationships Act 1984 (NSW), which allows for adjustments to property settlements if the court considers the initial settlement was not fair and just. The court had to consider the contributions made by each party, both financial and non-financial, and the future needs and circumstances of each party. The court also evaluated the evidence provided regarding the property settlement and the overall fairness of the initial agreement.

The Family Court found that the initial property settlement was not fair and just and warranted adjustment. The court highlighted that Slater made significant non-financial contributions to the relationship, including raising the couple's children. Additionally, the court considered Challenor's substantial financial contributions, but found these were not sufficient to justify the disproportionate property division in the initial settlement. The court determined that a more equitable division of the property would better reflect the contributions and needs of both parties. Consequently, the court ordered a re-assessment of the property settlement to achieve a more just outcome.

The final orders of the court included a re-assessment of the property settlement to ensure a fairer distribution of the assets. The court provided detailed directions for the parties to engage in further negotiations or mediation to reach an agreement. If the parties were unable to agree, the court reserved the right to make further orders regarding the division of the property.

Orders