CAMPBELL v CAMPBELL [1997] NSWCA 59

CAMPBELL v CAMPBELL SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

Mason P, HANDLEY JA and BROWNIE AJA 16 April 1997 [1997] NSWCA 59

DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS ACT — property rights adjustment — no question of principle

Mason P I agree with Brownie AJA Handley JA I agree with Brownie AJA.

Brownie AJA The appellant, Noel Raymond Campbell, and the respondent, Rosine Campbell, lived together for a time in a de facto relationship within the meaning of the De Facto Relationships Act 1984 (the Act), in a home unit which the appellant had bought some years before the relationship began. He was employed by Australia Post, and also had an interest in an organisation called Pro Ma Distributors (Pro Ma). The respondent became involved in the Pro Ma business, and the parties entered into a partnership agreement regulating their affairs so far as concerned this business. At about the time that they separated, they entered into an agreement to terminate this partnership.

Afterwards, the respondent sued the appellant, claiming that he held the home unit subject to a constructive trust in her favour; alternatively, that he was estopped from denying that this was so; relief under the Contracts Review Act 1980 in relation to the termination of the partnership; an order for the adjustment of property rights under the provisions of the Act in relation to the home unit, the appellant's superannuation rights, and other assets; and an order for maintenance. The appellant brought a cross-claim seeking relief in relation to a car owned by the parties jointly, and an order for the removal of a caveat lodged by the respondent, claiming an interest in the home unit. By consent, Young J ordered that the whole of the proceedings be heard by a master.

On the hearing, before Master McLaughlin, the respondent withdrew her claim for maintenance. The learned master dismissed the claims relating to the supposed trust, and under the Contracts Review Act; and there was no appeal from these findings. However, he ordered the appellant to pay $50,000 to the respondent, by way of adjustment of property rights; and made an order that the caveat be withdrawn upon the payment of that sum. The appeal is against the order for the payment of $50,000, and the lack of an order for the removal of the caveat.