Chanter v Catts [2004] NSWSC 1025

Reported Decision : (2004) DFC 95-303

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Chanter v Catts [2004] NSWSC 1025 HEARING DATE(S) : 08/09/04 and 09/09/04 JUDGMENT DATE : 19 November 2004 JURISDICTION: Equity Division JUDGMENT OF : Master Macready at 1 DECISION : Paragraph 142

CATCHWORDS : Family Law. Application under Property (Relationships) Act for adjustment of property interests. Earlier separation agreement set aside. Consideration of post separation contributions and superannuation. PARTIES : Maree Eve Chanter v Peter Frederick Catts FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 3690/2002 COUNSEL : Mr C. Simpson for plaintiff Mr M. Broun QC with Mr B. Odling for defendant SOLICITORS : Adrian Twigg & Co for plaintiff Stuart Fowler & Partners for defendant

- 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

Master Macready

Friday 19 November 2004

3690/2002 Maree Eve Chanter v Peter Frederick Catts JUDGMENT 1 Master: This is the hearing of proceedings for the adjustment of the parties' property interests pursuant to s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) (the Act). The parties lived together in an admitted de facto relationship between 22 March 1984 and late April 1997. There were three children from the relationship. Both parties are medical practitioners, the plaintiff being a psychiatrist and the defendant a general surgeon. 2 When the parties separated in April 1997 they entered into a separation agreement, which governed their financial relationships until the present time. In these proceedings the plaintiff sought to set aside the separation agreement. Shortly before the hearing, the parties agreed that the separation agreement would be set aside by consent and that the court would deal with a matter under s 20 of the Act. Though the present application is brought substantially out of time, the defendant does not oppose any necessary extension of time for the commencement of proceedings. Having regard to the circumstances and in particular the agreement to set aside the separation agreement, I am satisfied that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff if leave were not granted than would be caused to the defendant if that leave were granted and accordingly I would propose to extend the time for the commencement of the proceedings. 3 Since the separation of the parties, the plaintiff has had the substantial care of the three children. She puts her case for adjustment based in large part upon her efforts in this regard since separation. For this reason it is necessary to deal with the history of the parties somewhat more fully than is normal for such proceedings. Chronology 4 The defendant was born on 12 April 1940 and is now aged 64. The plaintiff was born on 24 July 1954 and is now aged 50. The defendant had three children by his first marriage. Those children range in age from 32 to 36. 5 The plaintiff says she first met the defendant in 1983 when she was a final year medical student and the defendant was her Surgical Tutor. In early 1984 the plaintiff says the parties discussed living together. She says that in anticipation of parties commencing to live together, she borrowed $10,000.00, which was applied towards the purchase of a second-hand Holden Gemini motor vehicle and furnishings, whitegoods and Manchester for the parties.