Sudsai v Barbetti & Anor [2008] NSWDC 30

Sudsai v Barbetti & Anor [2008] NSWDC 30

The plaintiff and first defendant were in a de facto relationship from not later than November 1990 until May 2003, a period of 12.5 years. The plaintiff made significant homemaker and parenting contributions and modest financial ones, with the first defendant as primary breadwinner. The net property pool as at separation (May 2003) was $1,107,230. It is just and equitable to order a 26% adjustment in favour of the plaintiff, accounting for her contributions and the post-separation dissipation of assets by the first defendant. The order includes a lump sum payment and transfer of jointly held assets; superannuation is valued as at separation. Post-separation conduct and expenditures by...

Parties
Plaintiff: Benjarat (Noi) Sudsai; First Defendant: Michael Francis Barbetti; Second Defendant: Napawan Klanprachar
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff entitled to adjustment in her favour of 26% of the property pool as at May 2003, including specific orders for payment and transfer of property.
Legal Topics
Adjustment of Property Interests, De Facto Relationship Property Settlement, Superannuation in Property Settlements, Contributions (financial/non Financial), Time Limits and Leave to Apply, Valuation of Overseas Property, Just and Equitable Orders, Costs of Proceedings
Family Law De Facto Relationships Property Law Adjustment of Property Interests De Facto Relationship Property Settlement Superannuation in Property Settlements Contributions (financial/non Financial) Time Limits and Leave to Apply +3 more

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 6 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjarat (Noi) Sudsai

Plaintiff

Michael Francis Barbetti

First Defendant

Napawan Klanprachar

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Period and existence of de facto relationship under Property (Relationships) Act 1984
  2. 2 Assessment of financial and non-financial contributions of each party
  3. 3 Proper valuation of property (date of separation vs date of trial) and overseas property valuation

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff and first defendant were in a de facto relationship from not later than November 1990 until May 2003, a period of 12.5 years. The plaintiff made significant homemaker and parenting contributions and modest financial ones, with the first defendant as primary breadwinner. The net property pool as at separation (May 2003) was $1,107,230. It is just and equitable to order a 26% adjustment in favour of the plaintiff, accounting for her contributions and the post-separation dissipation of assets by the first defendant. The order includes a lump sum payment and transfer of jointly held assets; superannuation is valued as at separation. Post-separation conduct and expenditures by...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff entitled to adjustment in her favour of 26% of the property pool as at May 2003, including specific orders for payment and transfer of property.

Orders

  • First defendant to pay plaintiff a lump sum of $199,202 within 28 days;
  • Failing compliance, first and second defendants to sell Chapel Hill property in Queensland to satisfy payment plus interest;