Keller v Hand [2006] NSWSC 1224

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Keller v Hand [2006] NSWSC 1224

HEARING DATE(S) : 15/11/06, 16/11/06

JUDGMENT DATE : 16 November 2006

JURISDICTION : Equity

JUDGMENT OF : Associate Justice Macready at 1

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 11/16/2006

CATCHWORDS : Family Law. Application for adjustment under s20 of Property (Relationships) Act 1984. Orders made. No matters of principle.

PARTIES : Eleanor Margaret Keller v Penelope Hand

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1071 of 2006

COUNSEL : Mr C Simpson SC for plaintiff Mr C Vinden for defendant

SOLICITORS : The Argyle Partnership for plaintiff Andrea Wilson & Associates for defendant

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

Associate Justice Macready

Thursday 16 November 2006

1071/06 Eleanor Margaret Keller v Penelope Hand JUDGMENT 1 His Honour: This is an application for adjustment of the parties property pursuant to s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984. The parties lived in an admitted de facto relationship from November 1990 until 21 August 2003. They had no children who were part of the household. History of the relationship 2 The plaintiff was born on 29 September 1950 and the defendant was born on 27 November 1960. In 1978 the plaintiff purchased property at 30 Arthur Street, Leichhardt for $31,750 with the assistance of a mortgage.

3 In April 1990 the parties met and in November 1990 the parties commenced to cohabit when the Defendant moved into Plaintiff's home at 30 Arthur Street, Leichhardt. The defendant suggests that it occurred in June 1990 but having seen the plaintiff's evidence concedes that it may have been December. In the circumstances of this case the difference is immaterial. At the time the plaintiff was employed as a teacher as was the defendant. 4 After the move the parties maintained separate bank accounts. The plaintiff paid the rates and insurance on the Leichhardt property. When the defendant moved in she paid no rent and Plaintiff made all mortgage repayments of $600 per month. The plaintiff says she paid rates and insurance on the property and parties shared electricity and telephone. The defendant says she paid all electricity and telephone.