Ronald Thomas Shea v

Ronald Thomas Shea appealed against a decision of John Hansen J that he should pay Bonita Joy Ward $95,747.25 out of the proceeds of the sale of their jointly owned home. The balance of the settlement proceeds, after that payment, was to be divided equally between them. Shea appealed against the refusal of Hansen J to grant an adjournment and against the amount of the payment ordered. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal on 18 July 2001 and delivered its judgment on 13 August 2001. The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal considered four issues. The first was whether Shea should be granted leave to adduce further evidence. The court accepted Shea’s affidavit containing the additional evidence on a provisional basis. The second issue was whether the court should give effect to the parties’ agreement of 24 November 1997. The Court of Appeal concluded that Shea had not discharged the onus falling on him to prove that he was induced to enter into the agreement by duress. The third issue was whether Shea had proved that he had met any outgoings on the mortgage or paid rates or effected repairs while he was in exclusive occupation of their home. The Court of Appeal was not satisfied that Shea had proved his case. The fourth issue was whether the $1000 deducted in respect of the state of the house at settlement should be shared between the parties or should be visited exclusively on Shea. The Court of Appeal concluded that Ward should not be visited with the consequences of that breach because Shea was in exclusive occupation and he had failed to properly vacate. The Court of Appeal then undertook an accounting between the parties. It concluded that Ward was entitled to almost 87% of the pot and Shea was entitled to just over 13%. The Court of Appeal directed the registrar of the High Court to pay from the trust account to Ward the sum of $115,554.89 plus 87% of any interest earned and to Shea the sum of $10,692.49 plus 13% of any interest earned.