Williamson v Birch [2001] NSWSC 36

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Williamson v Birch [2001] NSWSC 36 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 3355/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 29/01/2001, 30/01/2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 31 January 2001

PARTIES : Richard Charles Williamson v Melanie Birch JUDGMENT OF : Master Macready at 1

COUNSEL : Mr R. Bell for plaintiff Mr G. Thistleton for defendant SOLICITORS : Malouf Solicitors, Parramatta for plaintiff Lili Bulyk, Solicitor, for defendant CATCHWORDS : Family Law. Application under Property Relationship Act for adjustment of parties to property. Discussion of allowances for improvements to and conservation of property. Green v Robinson (1945) 36 NSWLR 96; CASES CITED : Hicks v Harvey (Master Macready ) 20/02/98; Pierce v Pierce Family Court 10/06/98; DECISION : Para 35

- 1 -

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

MASTER MACREADY

WEDNESDAY 31 JANUARY 2001

3355/99 - RICHARD CHARLES WILLIAMSON v MELANIE BIRCH

JUDGMENT

1 MASTER: This is an application under the Property Relationships Act for adjustment of the parties' property interests. The parties lived together in a defacto relationship from September 1994 until 11 December 1997. There was a break in the relationship of some three weeks during January and February 1997. There is no detail in the evidence before me on this break, and indeed the parties conducted the case before me on the basis that there was a continuous relationship from September 1994 until December 1997 and I will accept their treatment of the relationship as continuous. 2 The plaintiff at commencement was divorced, as was the defendant. He was then 45 and she was then 40. The defendant had two children, Samantha born 7 January 1982 and Stacy born 13 December 1984. They were thus 12 and 10 at the commencement of the relationship and were treated as part of the parties household. There was no issue of the relationship. However, it is clear that the parties were endeavouring to have children but this did not come to fruition, the defendant having had two miscarriages. 3 During the period of the relationship the parties lived together in the defendant's residence at 812 Comleroy Road, Kurrajong. The defendant had retained this as a result of her property settlement. 4 At the commencement of the relationship the defendant's assets were as follows: