COLLINS v NOWAK [2001] NSWSC 526

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : COLLINS v NOWAK [2001] NSWSC 526 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1651/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 15/06/01 JUDGMENT DATE : 1 August 2001

PARTIES : LYNNE VICTORIA COLLINS v JOHN CHARLES NOWAK JUDGMENT OF : Master Macready at 1

COUNSEL : A. Rees for plaintiff R. Wilson for defendant SOLICITORS : Ferry's Law Firm for plaintiff Peninsula Law for defendant CATCHWORDS : Family Law. Application for adjustment of parties' property interests pursuant to the Property (Relationships) Act. Order made for adjustment. No matter of principle. DECISION : Paragraph 31

- 1 -

1 MASTER: This is an application under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 to adjust the parties' property pursuant to s 20 of that Act. The parties lived together in a de facto relationship from either late 1993 or very early in 1994 through until their separation in March 1999. There were no children of the relationship. At the time of the commencement of the relationship the plaintiff had her son, Bradley, born on 4 April 1980 and daughter Bronwyn, born on 30 December 1974 living with her. Most of the time the parties were living together in a de facto relationship Bronwyn was working in Sydney during the week and living at home at the weekends. The parties had met in 1990 and although there was some dispute on the pleadings as to the exact commencement date of the relationship, given the evidence that emerged at the hearing , the defendant accepts that in fact it commenced shortly after Christmas 1993. 2 From the commencement of the relationship the parties lived in a home which was owned by the plaintiff. She had received that home pursuant to a property settlement with her former husband and to do so she paid a sum to her former husband. The property which was at 21 Casuarina Close, Umina was not subject to a mortgage. However the plaintiff had borrowed the sum of $35,500 from her parents in order to pay out the amount due to her former partner under the property settlement. 3 Apart from the home the only assets which the plaintiff had was furniture valued at $10,000. The defendant had no assets. He had recently completedhad a property settlement with his former spouse. 4 The plaintiff placed her property for sale in September 1993. This was because she and the defendant had planned to acquire a property at Woy Woy with the plaintiff using her funds as her contribution to that property. It was anticipated that the defendant would borrow funds for his share and in due course it would be paid off. After about a year it became apparent that the plaintiff's property was not going to sell and it was taken off the market. 5 In 1995 the parties agreed that the defendant would purchase a half share in the property from the plaintiff. This was to be by payment of $100,000 which was to be borrowed by the defendant from the Police Department Employees Credit Union Limited. As a result the property was transferred from the plaintiff to both parties as joint tenants and a mortgage entered into for $100,000. That amount was not all paid to the plaintiff and ultimately there must have been a change in plans probably resulting from the change in the defendant's employment. He had been employed as a driver or guard with Brambles and decided to start his own business known as Coastal Tactical Training which was to train persons who wanted to work in the security industry. The $100,000 which was obtained from the mortgage on the property was disbursed as follows:-