HAYES v JONES [1998] NSWCA 102

HAYES v JONES

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

POWELL, BEAZLEY and STEIN JJA 20 March 1998, 27 July 1998

[1998] NSWCA 102

DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS ACT (1984) — s20(1)(b) — whether sufficient allowance made for non-economic contributions — Evans v Marmont (1997)

This appeal is from a decision concerning an application for an adjustment of property interests, pursuant to s20 of the De Facto Relationships Act 1984. The property interests of the parties include two real estate properties.

Master McLaughlin found that the appellant's non-economic contributions had been "very substantial' and 'significant'. He made orders requiring the sale of one property (Port Macquarie) and for the nett proceeds to be divided equally between the parties. The respondent was declared to be the sole beneficial owner of the second property.

The appellant submits that this adjustment of property interests is, in effect, a division of assets of around 65% to the respondent and 35% to the appellant. She argues that, despite the Master's finding, no or insufficient allowance was made for her non-financial contributions.

Held by majority:

The Master's finding concerning the appellant's contributions did not translate into a just and equitable adjustment of the parties respective interests. An appropriate adjustment, applying the principles in Evans v Marmont, is for the appellant to receive, in round terms, 54% and the respondent 46% of the two properties. Accordingly, a just and equitable adjustment would be to vary the Master's orders relating to the properties by substituting for an equal division of the proceeds of sale of the Port Macquarie property, the proportion of 75% to the appellant and 25% to the respondent.

Evans v Marmont (1997) 42 NSWLR 70 applied.

Powell JA The difficulties which attend the determination of this appeal from a Judgment delivered by Master McLaughlin on 4 August 1997 in proceedings which had been brought by the Respondent seeking relief pursuant to the provisions of s20 of the De Facto Relationship Act 1984 ('the Act") are the product of a number of disparate factors: