Anderson v Hill [2004] NSWSC 736

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Anderson v Hill [2004] NSWSC 736 HEARING DATE(S) : 9th, 10th, 11th August 2004. JUDGMENT DATE : 19 August 2004 JURISDICTION: Equity Division JUDGMENT OF : Master Macready at 1 DECISION : Paragraph 75

CATCHWORDS : Family Law. Application under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 for adjustment of the parties' property interests. Small adjustment in favour of the plaintiff. PARTIES : Julie Marie Anderson v Martin Gregory Hill FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 5669/2002 COUNSEL : Ms R. Druitt for plaintiff Mr M. Evans for defendant SOLICITORS : Murdock's Family Law for plaintiff Kalmath Lawyers for defendant

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

Master Macready

Thursday 19 August 2004

5669/02 Julie Marie Anderson v Martin Gregory Hill JUDGMENT 1 Master: This is an application for the adjustment of the parties' property interests under s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) (the Act). The plaintiff alleges that the parties lived in a de facto relationship from 17 April 2000 until late January 2002. The parties have one child, Madison Olivia Louise Hill, who was born on 3 May 2001. The defendant denies the existence of a de facto relationship but accepts responsibility in respect of his child. History of the relationship 2 The defendant is 42 years of age having been born on 4 February 1962. The plaintiff is 33 years of age having been born on 6 May 1971. Between 1994 and 1996 they had a social and sexual relationship. The relationship ceased for a few months until February or March 1997 when the plaintiff was overseas but resumed in mid 1997. 3 In 1999, the defendant sold his unit at Lane Cove and on 1 April 1999 the Defendant purchased a property at 16 Edenholme Road, Russell Lea, for $340,000.00. This was funded by a mortgage to the Westpac Banking Corporation in the sum of $272,000.00. The defendant contributed the balance of the purchase price. 4 At this stage the plaintiff was living in a unit, which she rented and shared at Lane Cove. In April 2000 she received an eviction notice. She discussed this with the defendant and as a result of the discussion she moved in to the property at Russell Lea. Before the plaintiff's move there were extensive renovations made to the property. After the move, these continued on a lesser basis. 5 The plaintiff became pregnant in August 2000 and their child Madison was born on 3 May 2001. By the end of the year the parties were in counselling because of troubles in their relationship. By January 2002 the plaintiff says that the parties had separated but still continued to live under the same roof. On 13 February 2002 the plaintiff and her child left the property and began to reside at her mother's property. 6 There are orders of the Family Court that deal with the custody of the child Madison. The plaintiff has the care and control of Madison with access having been granted to the defendant. Both the plaintiff and the defendant have input into plans for the child's long-term care, welfare and development.