SXM v NYH

[2013] QDC 254

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

SXM v NYH [2013] QDC 254

PARTIES:

SXM

(Applicant)

v

NYH

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

2042/09

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court in Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

27 November 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 August 2013

JUDGE:

Kingham DCJ

ORDER:

1.   NYH must pay SXM the sum of $75,000.

CATCHWORDS:

PROPERTY LAW ACT – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP – PROPERTY ADJUSTMENT ORDER – where both parties presently own their own houses and have modest personal chattels – where the applicant held more assets than the respondent when their relationship commenced – where the applicant now holds less assets than the respondent - where the applicant has problems with her health – where the respondent has greater earning capacity than the applicant - where the relationship was relatively short - where the applicant seeks an order that the respondent pay her $75,000 – where the respondent asks that each party retain what is currently in their possession - whether the order applied for is just and equitable in the circumstances of the case.

Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), Part 19.

In the Marriage of Phillips (2002) 29 Fam LR 128, cited.

JJM v REM [2013] QDC 242 [80], followed.

NFO V PFA [2005] QSC 176, cited.

Pierce & Pierce [1998] FamCA, followed.

COUNSEL:

The Applicant appeared on her own behalf.

The Respondent appeared on his own behalf.

SOLICITORS:

The Applicant appeared on her own behalf.

The Respondent appeared on his own behalf.

1.) Background

1. SXM and NYH met in 2002. By January 2003 they were living in a genuine and committed relationship in New Zealand. The couple returned to Brisbane later that year and continued living together, at SXM’s property at Balmoral. Their son AH was born the following April. They lived together as a family until the parties separated on 24 July 2007. In total, they cohabited for some four years and six months.[1]

   [1] Transcript of Proceedings, District Court at Brisbane, 26/08/13, 1-22[37] – [42].

2. They have now been separated more than 6 years. SXM seeks a property adjustment order pursuant to Ch 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld). Under that chapter, the Court’s function is to determine an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances of the case,[2] having identified and valued the property pool at the time of separation and taking into account the relevant factors, including those identified by ss 291-309.

   [2] NFO V PFA [2005] QSC 176 at [14]; and In the Marriage of Phillips (2002) 29 Fam LR 128 at 140[66].

3. This application took some time to make its way to hearing, and attempts to resolve the difference between the parties were, unfortunately, unsuccessful. By the time of the hearing the parties represented themselves. There was no dispute about the value of the most significant items of property. The parties did their best to narrow the matters in dispute and both made sensible concessions about the value of disputed items, a shift from…