Bowmaker v Hodgson [2003] NSWSC 792

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Bowmaker v Hodgson [2003] NSWSC 792 HEARING DATE(S) : 17 & 18 July 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 29 August 2003 JURISDICTION: Equity Division JUDGMENT OF : Master Macready at 1 DECISION :

CATCHWORDS : Family Law. Application under Property Relationships Act for adjustment of parties' property interests. Whether a global approach is appropriate. Orders made. PARTIES : Heather Bowmaker v Donald Edward Hodgson FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2260/2002 COUNSEL : R. Wilson for plaintiff G. O'Gorman for defendant SOLICITORS : Marrion &Oliver for plaintiff Donnelly Lawyers for defendant

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

MASTER MACREADY

Friday 29 August 2003

2260/2002 HEATHER BOWMAKER v DONALD EDWARD HODGSON JUDGMENT 1 MASTER: This is an application under s 20 of the Property Relationships Act in which the parties seek adjustment of their property interests pursuant to s 20. There were no children of the relationship between the parties and there were no children of either party who were cared for by the parties during the course of the relationship. 2 Throughout the period of the relationship the parties bought, refurbished and sold a number of different properties. In order to understand these transactions I will first set out a general chronology of the relevant events and then return to the commencement and conclusion dates of the relationship. Chronology 3 The defendant was born on 11 December 1936 and, accordingly, is now 66 years of age. The plaintiff was born on 7 January 1956 and is now 47 years of age. They first met in 1980 and at that stage the defendant was still married. 4 One of the properties that was still owned by the defendant during the course of the relationship was a property at 136 Charles Street, Minnamurra which was purchased by the defendant and his former wife in 1980 for $55,000. 5 On 11 October 1984 the defendant purchased in his name a property at 244 Trafalgar Street, Annandale for $82,000. It was financed by a mortgage from the Commonwealth Bank for $45,000 and the balance of the funds were provided by the defendant.