Sullman v Sullman [2002] NSWSC 169

Sullman v Sullman [2002] NSWSC 169

The Court found a de facto relationship existed from 7 November 1995 until Mr Sullman left for England in November 1997, but not for two years. Although Mr Sullman made contributions to the household and mortgage, the sum of his contributions did not exceed his pre-existing maintenance obligations and did not warrant an order adjusting property interests. The Toyota Landcruiser was held as beneficial property with proportions allocated according to each party’s financial contribution.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for adjustment of property interests refused. Declaration of proportionate beneficial interests in motor vehicle.
Legal Topics
['de Facto Relationships' 'property Adjustment' 'beneficial Interest' 'statutory Interpretation' 'child Maintenance' 'evidentiary Principles']
['family Law' 'equity' 'property Law'] ['de Facto Relationships' 'property Adjustment' 'beneficial Interest' 'statutory Interpretation' 'child Maintenance' 'evidentiary Principles']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Existence and duration of a de facto relationship' 'Entitlement to property adjustment under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984' 'Beneficial ownership of Toyota Landcruiser' 'Whether financial and non-financial contributions justify adjustment of property interests' "Statutory construction of 'just and equitable'" 'Effect of contributions after termination of relationship']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found a de facto relationship existed from 7 November 1995 until Mr Sullman left for England in November 1997, but not for two years. Although Mr Sullman made contributions to the household and mortgage, the sum of his contributions did not exceed his pre-existing maintenance obligations and did not warrant an order adjusting property interests. The Toyota Landcruiser was held as beneficial property with proportions allocated according to each party’s financial contribution.

Court Disposition

Application for adjustment of property interests refused. Declaration of proportionate beneficial interests in motor vehicle.

Orders

  • ['Plaintiff and defendant declared beneficial owners of Toyota Landcruiser motor vehicle registration TZF585 in proportions 23,000:35,824.' 'Amended summons dismissed.' 'Cross-claim dismissed.' 'Cross-claimant to pay 90% of cross-defendant’s costs of proceedings.' 'Orders not to be entered until 28 days from...