Michael Senno v Natasha Bailey [2011] NSWSC 679

Michael Senno v Natasha Bailey [2011] NSWSC 679

The plaintiff established a reasonable claim for property adjustment, and the evidence disclosed that if leave were not granted, the ensuing loss of his claim would create hardship greater than any hardship to the defendant in permitting the application. Accordingly, leave to apply for orders for a property settlement was granted under part 3 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984.

Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Michael Senno; Defendant/respondent: Natasha Bailey
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Property Settlement Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 / Interlocutory (application for Leave to Apply Out of Time)
Outcome
Leave to apply for orders for a property settlement pursuant to part 3 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 granted.
Legal Topics
Property Adjustment for Former De Facto Partners, Application for Leave Out of Statutory Time Limit, Assessment of Contributions and Hardship, Occupation Fee and Exclusion From Property
Family Law Equity Property Adjustment for Former De Facto Partners Application for Leave Out of Statutory Time Limit Assessment of Contributions and Hardship Occupation Fee and Exclusion From Property

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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 22
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Senno

Plaintiff/applicant

Natasha Bailey

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Property Settlement Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 / Interlocutory (application for Leave to Apply Out of Time)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for property settlement orders out of time should be granted under section 18(2) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984
  2. 2 Whether hardship would be suffered by the applicant if leave were not granted
  3. 3 Whether the acquisition of property as a prize constitutes a joint contribution or a windfall

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff established a reasonable claim for property adjustment, and the evidence disclosed that if leave were not granted, the ensuing loss of his claim would create hardship greater than any hardship to the defendant in permitting the application. Accordingly, leave to apply for orders for a property settlement was granted under part 3 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for orders for a property settlement pursuant to part 3 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 granted.

Orders

  • Leave granted to apply for orders for a property settlement under part 3 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984.
  • Costs of the motion are to be the parties' costs in the cause, subject to an application for a different costs order made within seven days of the date of judgment.