Trosse v Howard

Case [2009] NSWCA 346

New South Wales


Court of Appeal


CITATION: Trosse v Howard [2009] NSWCA 346
HEARING DATE(S): 28 September 2009
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
22 October 2009
JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Basten JA at 35; Macfarlan JA at 50
DECISION: (1) Appeal allowed.
(2) Set aside orders made below.
(3) In lieu thereof:
(a) order that within twenty-eight days Mr Trosse discharge the liabilities of the parties to St George Bank and Visa, and that he indemnify and keep indemnified Ms Howard in relation to these liabilities;
(b) dismiss the cross-claim;
(c) order that Mr Trosse pay one-half of Ms Howard’s costs of the proceedings;
(4) Ms Howard to pay Mr Trosse’s costs of the appeal, and to have a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 if otherwise eligible.
CATCHWORDS: FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – De Facto Relations – Adjustment of property interests – Evaluation of contributorions – Need for articulation of how the contributions make an adjustment just and equitable.
LEGISLATION CITED: Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW)
Property (Relationships) Act 1984 s 20
CATEGORY: Principal judgment
CASES CITED: Antoinette Howard v Gregory Trosse [2008] NSWDC 328
Baker v Towle [2008] NSWCA 73; 39 Fam LR 323
Chanter v Catts [2005] NSWCA 411; 64 NSWLR 360
Golosky v Golosky [1993] NSWCA 111
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499
Howlett v Neilson [2005] NSWCA 149; 33 Fam LR 402
Singer v Berghouse [1994] HCA 40; 181 CLR 201
Singer v Berghouse [1992] NSWCA 230
PARTIES: Gregory TROSSE (appellant)
Antoinette HOWARD (respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40052/09
COUNSEL: P MAIDEN SC (appellant)
T HODGSON (respondent)
SOLICITORS: Ashton Stedman Solicitors (appellant)
Sorenson & Brown Solicitors (respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 5119/07
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Rolfe DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 5 December 2008
LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Antoinette Howard v Gregory Trosse [2008] NSWDC 328




                          CA 40052/09
                          DC 5119/07

                          HODGSON JA
                          BASTEN JA
                          MACFARLAN JA

                          22 OCTOBER 2009
Gregory TROSSE v Antoinette HOWARD
Judgment

1 HODGSON JA: On 5 December 2008, Rolfe DCJ gave his decision in proceedings (Antoinette Howard v Gregory Trosse [2008] NSWDC 328) in which the respondent (Ms Howard) had sought orders pursuant to the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (the Act), and in which the appellant (Mr Trosse) had by a cross-claim also sought orders pursuant to the Act; and on 10 December 2008, the primary judge made orders giving effect to that decision.

2 By those orders, the primary judge ordered Mr Trosse to pay Ms Howard $75,000; ordered Mr Trosse to discharge certain liabilities of the parties which were then $72,500; ordered Mr Trosse to pay Ms Howard costs of her claim; dismissed Mr Trosse’s cross-claim; and ordered Mr Trosse to pay Ms Howard’s costs of the cross-claim.

3 Mr Trosse appeals from those orders.


      Circumstances

4 I will begin by outlining facts giving rise to the proceedings which are either common ground or found by the primary judge…

Continue reading Trosse v Howard

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Trosse v Howard [2009] NSWCA 346
Case
[2009] NSWCA 346
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New South Wales heard an appeal concerning the adjustment of property interests between Mr Trosse and Ms Howard, who had been in a de facto relationship. The dispute centred on the evaluation of their respective contributions and the need for the court to clearly articulate how any adjustment to property interests would be just and equitable.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had adequately explained the reasoning behind the property adjustment orders made, particularly in relation to the parties' contributions. The court was required to determine if the orders made were demonstrably just and equitable, and if the process by which those orders were reached was transparent and legally sound.

The Court of Appeal found that the original orders lacked sufficient articulation regarding how the contributions of each party translated into the specific property adjustment. The court emphasised that a just and equitable outcome requires a clear explanation of how contributions, both financial and non-financial, are weighed and factored into any division of property. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the previous orders were set aside, and new orders were made requiring Mr Trosse to discharge specific liabilities and indemnify Ms Howard. The cross-claim was dismissed, and directions were given regarding the costs of the proceedings and the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Appeal allowed.

(2) Set aside orders made below.

(3) In lieu thereof:

(a) order that within twenty-eight days Mr Trosse discharge the liabilities of the parties to St George Bank and Visa, and that he indemnify and keep indemnified Ms Howard in relation to these liabilities;

(b) dismiss the cross-claim;

(c) order that Mr Trosse pay one-half of Ms Howard’s costs of the proceedings;

(4) Ms Howard to pay Mr Trosse’s costs of the appeal, and to have a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 if otherwise eligible.

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.