Separovich v Ferrao [2011] NSWCA 180

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Separovich v Ferrao [2011] NSWCA 180 Hearing dates: 9 February 2011 Decision date: 06 July 2011 Before: Beazley JA at [1]; McColl JA at [81]; Macfarlan JA at [82] Decision: 1. Appeal against orders (1) and (2) made by McLaughlin AsJ on 24 March 2010 dismissed; 2. Further to order (1) made by McLaughlin AsJ on 24 March 2010 order that: (a) simultaneously upon payment to the plaintiff by the defendant of the sum of $160,000, the plaintiff transfer to the defendant her right, title and interest in the property situated at Quinalup Street, Gwandalan and the defendant cause the discharge of the mortgage to the Westpac Bank; (b) the defendant indemnify the plaintiff in respect of her liability under the Westpac mortgage on and from 24 March 2010; 3. Stand over the final determination of the appeal against order (3) in respect of the costs of the proceedings at first instance made by McLaughlin AsJ pending the parties making further submissions thereon; 4. Stand over any order as to the costs of the appeal pending the parties making further submissions thereon; 5. Direct the respondent to file any written submissions in respect of costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal within 14 days of today's date; 6. Direct the appellant to file any submissions in reply within 14 days of receipt of the respondent's submissions. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - de facto relationship - adjustment of interests of parties in property - respective contributions of parties - Property (Relationships) Act 1984, s 20 - whether order of the trial judge for adjustment was just and equitable - whether trial judge erred in failing to set out asset pool and resources of parties - no error in trial judge's assessment of parties' contributions - trial judge made reference to all of the assets of the parties - trial judge determination involved exercise of discretion - no requirement that the Court deal with assets in a particular manner