Murphy v Mimram [2008] NSWSC 679

Murphy v Mimram [2008] NSWSC 679

The court rejected a pooling and equal distribution of all assets because the defendant had not shown contributions to the plaintiff's separate assets, both parties worked throughout the relationship, and their affairs were largely kept separate. The separate assets were to be retained by each party. For the jointly held real estate, the 60/40 agreement and the parties' continuing conduct on that basis were significant, but the plaintiff had made substantial additional contributions and the defendant was entitled to some further allowance for homemaker contributions. Taking those matters together, the defendant should receive $400,000 from the Cammeray properties, keep the car and her own...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Claim and Cross Claim Under Section 20 of the Property (relationships) Act 1984 for Adjustment of Property Interests Following a De Facto Relationship / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Order for adjustment in favour of the plaintiff; the matter was stood over for draft orders to give effect to the judgment and for submissions on costs.
Legal Topics
['section 20 Property (relationships) Act 1984' 'adjustment of Property Interests' 'financial Contributions' 'non Financial Contributions' 'homemaker Contributions' 'jointly Held Real Estate']
['de Facto Relationships' 'property Adjustment' 'equity'] ['section 20 Property (relationships) Act 1984' 'adjustment of Property Interests' 'financial Contributions' 'non Financial Contributions' 'homemaker Contributions' 'jointly Held Real Estate']

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

Claim and Cross Claim Under Section 20 of the Property (relationships) Act 1984 for Adjustment of Property Interests Following a De Facto Relationship / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether property interests should be adjusted under section 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 after the breakdown of the parties' de facto relationship." "Whether the parties' assets should be pooled and divided equally or considered on an asset-by-asset basis." "What effect should be given to the parties' 60/40 agreement and their subsequent conduct in relation to real estate contributions." 'What allowance should be made for financial contributions, non-financial contributions and homemaker contributions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The court rejected a pooling and equal distribution of all assets because the defendant had not shown contributions to the plaintiff's separate assets, both parties worked throughout the relationship, and their affairs were largely kept separate. The separate assets were to be retained by each party. For the jointly held real estate, the 60/40 agreement and the parties' continuing conduct on that basis were significant, but the plaintiff had made substantial additional contributions and the defendant was entitled to some further allowance for homemaker contributions. Taking those matters together, the defendant should receive $400,000 from the Cammeray properties, keep the car and her own...

Court Disposition

Order for adjustment in favour of the plaintiff; the matter was stood over for draft orders to give effect to the judgment and for submissions on costs.

Orders

  • ['The defendant should receive the sum of $400,000 from the Cammeray properties.' 'The defendant should keep the car and her own assets.' 'The plaintiff should receive the balance and indemnify the defendant against liability under the mortgage.' 'The matter was stood over so that draft orders could be brought in to...