Williamson v Tyms

[2009] NSWDC 348

CITATION:	Williamson v Tyms [2009] NSWDC 348
HEARING DATE(S):	31 July 2009
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	4 August 2009
JURISDICTION:	District Court - Civil
JUDGMENT OF:	Sidis DCJ
DECISION:	1) Verdict and judgement for the plaintiff in the sum of $110,000.00 2) The defendant is to the plaintiff costs on an ordinary basis up to and including 21 November 2008 and on an indemnity basis thereafter however the costs order will not extend to the costs incurred on the 20 July 2009; those occasioned by the preparation of an affidavit that was not read and those costs occasioned by the proceedings of the 5th August 2009 3) The period payment time is extended to 90 days with liberty to apply 4) The exhibits are returned
CATCHWORDS:	DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP - Adjustment of interest - Agreement that one party would remain at home to manage the household - Deterioration of assets during term of relationship
LEGISLATION CITED:	Property Relationships Act 1984
PARTIES:	Aina Signe Maria Williamson (Plaintiff) Steffan Adrian Tyms (Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S):	24/08
COUNSEL:	G Gould (For the Plaintiff) P Davies (For the Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Cunningham & Adams Solcitors (For the Plaintiff) O'Hearn & Bilinsky Lawyers (For the Defendant)

JUDGMENT

1 These proceedings are brought pursuant to the Property Relationships Act 1984 and raise the issue of whether an adjustment is warranted of the property interests of the plaintiff Aina Williamson and the defendant Steffan Tyms. They were in a de facto relationship for a period of just over six years between 1999 and 2006. The plaintiff’s child Dylan, who was four at the commencement of the relationship, formed a part of their household.

2 The authorities require that in determining applications such as this I adopt a three stage process by firstly determining the property interests of the parties at the date of the hearing, secondly, determining the contributions, financial and non-financial of the parties to that property and, thirdly, deciding whether an adjustment is warranted.

3 In dealing with financial contributions I note that at the commencement of the relationship the plaintiff had little by way of assets other than some items of furniture and other personal property. She was not in income-earning employment but was receiving Social Security benefits.

4 The defendant owned a house at New Lambton that was unencumbered and was then valued at about $150,000. He was in regular employment and had accumulated superannuation of about $135,000. He had savings of about $29,000. He owned a motorcycle, a motor car, household furniture and other personal items.

5 At the time of separation the plaintiff’s position was the same. The defendant still owned the house at New Lambton which had increased in value and was then unencumbered. He remained in the same employment. His superannuation had increased but his savings were gone and an insurance policy had been cashed in and expended in support of the parties to the relationship and the child and he had a credit card debt.

6 Throughout the relationship the…