Kardos v Sarbutt [2006] NSWCA 11

Reported Decision : (2006) DFC 95-332

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION: Kardos v Sarbutt [2006] NSWCA 11 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 23 September 2005

JUDGMENT DATE: 14 February 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Basten JA at 1; Hunt AJA at 2; Brereton J at 3

DECISION: 1. That the appeal be allowed. 2. That the orders of the District Court made on 7 February and 21 February 2005 be set aside and in lieu thereof there be substituted with effect from 21 February 2005:- 2.1 Order that by way of adjustment and settlement of property interests pursuant to the Property (Relationships) Act 1984, s 20 the defendant Tristan Jane Kardos pay the plaintiff Paul Ventris Sarbutt the sum of $36,075. 2.2 Order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings. 3. That the respondent Paul Ventris Sarbutt pay the costs of the appellant Tristan Jane Kardos of the appeal. 4. That the respondent Paul Ventris Sarbutt be granted an indemnity certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW), s 6. 5. That the parties have liberty to apply to set aside orders 2.2 and 3 and for different costs orders, any such application to be made by written submission to be lodged with the Associate to the Presiding Judge within seven days, any response by the opposing party to be so lodged within a further seven days and any reply by the moving party within a further seven days thereafter.

CATCHWORDS: FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS –adjustment of property interests – appeal – approach to property adjustment – evaluation of contributions – whether trial judge erred in failing to adopt "asset-by-asset" approach – whether trial judge erred in treatment of initial contributions of parties – whether trial judged erred in assessment of ongoing contributions of parties during relationship – whether trial judged erred in allowing for "notional rent" of premises in which parties cohabited – whether trial judge erred in failing to allow interest when award was based on valuations struck at date of separation rather than hearing.