Han v Cramond [2005] NSWSC 1230

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Han v Cramond [2005] NSWSC 1230

HEARING DATE(S) : 25, 26, 27, and 28 October 2005

JUDGMENT DATE : 2 December 2005

JURISDICTION : Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF : Windeyer J at 1

DECISION : Order for adjustment in favour of the plaintiff.

CATCHWORDS : DEFACTO RELATIONSHIPS - claim for adjustment of property interests pursuant to s20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984

LEGISLATION CITED : Property (Relationships) Act 1984, s20

CASES CITED : Howlett v Neilson [2005] NSWCA 149

Leonie Han (Plaintiff) PARTIES : Murray David Cramond (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 4962 of 2003

Mr P M Connor (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : Mr M W Anderson (Defendant)

Abbott Tout (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Doolan Wagner & Callaghan (Defendant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :

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

WINDEYER J

FRIDAY 2 DECEMBER 2005.

4962/03 LEONIE HAN V MURRAY DAVID CRAMOND JUDGMENT 1 This is a claim under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 2 The plaintiff, Leonie Han (Han) and the defendant, Murray David Cramond (Cramond) lived in a de facto relationship from June 1998 until May 2002 with the exception of a period of separation for about five months commencing at the end of April or the beginning of May 1999. 3 Han was born on 10 October 1961 and is now aged 45 years. Cramond was born on 23 July 1965 and is now aged 40 years. They lived together first in a rented home at Naremburn and then in a rented house at St Ives and finally in a home at 60 Corymbia Circuit, Oxford Falls. 4 At the commencement of the relationship Han was managing director of a company Computer People and Solutions Pty Ltd (CPS). CPS was the trustee of the Leonie Han Family Settlement, a unit trust established in 1993. She was a beneficiary under that trust and a director of CPS. Her mother had been a director but resigned in 1997. At the time the relationship commenced Cramond was employed as a sales representative by a company Progress Maintenance Pty Ltd. 5 The case proceeded on the basis that the assets of the trust were the property of Han. She was a discretionary beneficiary as to income and capital and the only asset of the trust was the CPS business. When the business was sold, as I will explain later, the whole of the proceeds were distributed to her. 6 It is generally fundamental to claims for adjustment of property interests under s20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 to establish the assets of the parties at the commencement of the relationship; the assets acquired during the relationship and by whom; the assets of the parties at the end of the relationship; and contributions of each party to the acquisition, improvement and conservation of the separate or joint property: Howlett v Neilson [2005] NSWCA 149. Little in the way of evidence of these basic matters was available. There was no evidence of the value of the CPS business or the trust at the commencement of the relationship nor of the value of a company owned and controlled by Cramond at the end of the relationship, namely CPS Corporate Imaging Pty Ltd (CPSCI). Most of the other assets owned by either party had no proved value. Thus all the court can do is to list the assets of the parties at the commencement as follows: