Cameron v Lamonde [2000] NSWSC 566

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Cameron v Lamonde [2000] NSWSC 566 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1311/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 1, 2, and 3 May 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 26 June 2000

PARTIES : Duncan Raymond Cameron (P & Cr-D) Paulena Margot Lamonde (D & Cr-Cl) JUDGMENT OF : Master McLaughlin

COUNSEL : Mr. P. Maiden (P & Cr-D) Mr. D. Allen (D & Cr-Cl) SOLICITORS : Newnhams Solicitors (P & Cr-D) Hancocks Solicitors (D & Cr-Cl) CATCHWORDS : De Facto relationship - Adjustment of interests of parties in property - Defendant moved into residence in house property owned by Plaintiff - Subsequently Plaintiff transferred that property to himself and the Defendant as joint tenants - Plaintiff was principal breadwinner - Defendant was not in employment, but had investment income - Respective contributions of parties to improvement of house property - Contributions by Defendant as homemaker - Loan by Defendant to Plaintiff - Relationship was of a short duration. LEGISLATION CITED : De Facto Relationships Act 1984 Property (Relationships) Act 1984 CASES CITED : Evans v Marmont (1997) 42 NSWLR 70 DECISION : See paragraph 46

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

MASTER McLAUGHLIN

Monday, 26 June 2000

1311/99 DUNCAN RAYMOND CAMERON -v- PAULENA MARGOT LAMONDE JUDGMENT

1 MASTER: These are proceedings under the De Facto Relationships Act 1984 (now known as the Property (Relationships) Act 1984). 2 By statement of claim filed on 10 February 1999 the plaintiff Duncan Raymond Cameron claims orders for the adjustment of interests in property pursuant to section 20 of the De Facto Relationships Act. The defendant Paulena Margot Lamonde filed a defence and a cross-claim on 19 March 1999. By that cross-claim the defendant also seeks orders for the adjustment of interests in property. 3 The property in respect of which the foregoing substantive relief is sought by each party is a house property situate at and known as 8 Knightsbridge Avenue, Belrose (to which I shall refer as "the Belrose property"). 4 It was not in dispute that the parties were in a de facto relationship from July 1994 until 8 April 1998. On that latter date the relationship came to an end. However, the parties continued to reside in the Belrose property until 6 February 1999, when the defendant departed from that residence. 5 The plaintiff was born on 29 April 1946, and is presently aged 54 years. He has two children by an earlier marriage, Nadia (now aged 21) and Lydia (now aged about 19). The defendant was born on 15 February 1941, and is presently aged 58 years. She also has two children of a former marriage, Petria Salter (aged 35) and Amanda Salter (aged 32). 6 No children were born of the relationship between the parties. 7 Upon the commencement of the relationship the defendant moved into residence with the plaintiff in the Belrose property, which was already owned by the plaintiff. The defendant had previously been residing in rented accommodation at Fairlight for which she had been paying $200 a week. Apparently her daughter Amanda had been living with her in that rented accommodation, and Amanda accompanied her to the Belrose property when the defendant moved into residence there with the plaintiff. Amanda remained with them for a period of five months. 8 The Belrose property had been acquired by the plaintiff in about October-November 1993, for a purchase price of $265,000. That purchase price had been funded, in part, by a housing loan from the National Australia Bank in an amount of $85,000, which was secured by a mortgage. (Although the Belrose property was purchased before the commencement of the de facto relationship between the parties, the defendant accompanied the plaintiff when he was inspecting properties, with a view to making a purchase. She also gave him some assistance in moving into the Belrose property.) 9 At the commencement of the relationship the assets of the plaintiff consisted of: