NANSCHILD v PRATT [2010] NSWSC 344

NANSCHILD v PRATT [2010] NSWSC 344

The plaintiff's proposed 75/25 apportionment did not reflect the evidence. The defendant's greater capital contributions and non-financial contributions offset the plaintiff's greater income contributions except as to the Chermside and McDowall properties. A just and equitable adjustment was 50 per cent each for the Towrang properties and their secured line of credit, two thirds to the plaintiff and one third to the defendant for the retained Chermside and McDowall net proceeds, and 50 per cent each for $58,000 retained by the plaintiff in her ING account. No adjustment was made for Alpaca partnership assets because there was no current valuation, uncertainty about fixtures, and the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 20 of the Property (relationships) Act 1984 (nsw) for an Adjustive Property Order / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiff's proposed 75/25 apportionment rejected; adjustment to be made in accordance with the reasons; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['adjustive Property Orders' 'financial Contributions' 'non Financial Contributions' 'just and Equitable Adjustment' 'add Backs']
['equity' 'property Relationships' 'de Facto Relationships'] ['adjustive Property Orders' 'financial Contributions' 'non Financial Contributions' 'just and Equitable Adjustment' 'add Backs']

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

Application Under S 20 of the Property (relationships) Act 1984 (nsw) for an Adjustive Property Order / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What adjustment to the parties' property interests should be made under s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW)." "Whether the parties' financial and non-financial contributions justified the plaintiff's proposed 75/25 apportionment, the defendant's proposed broad 50/50 apportionment, or another division." "Whether net proceeds retained by the plaintiff from the Chermside and McDowall properties and funds in the plaintiff's ING account should be added back to the divisible pool." 'Whether any adjustment should be made for alleged disparity in former Alpaca partnership assets retained by the parties.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's proposed 75/25 apportionment did not reflect the evidence. The defendant's greater capital contributions and non-financial contributions offset the plaintiff's greater income contributions except as to the Chermside and McDowall properties. A just and equitable adjustment was 50 per cent each for the Towrang properties and their secured line of credit, two thirds to the plaintiff and one third to the defendant for the retained Chermside and McDowall net proceeds, and 50 per cent each for $58,000 retained by the plaintiff in her ING account. No adjustment was made for Alpaca partnership assets because there was no current valuation, uncertainty about fixtures, and the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's proposed 75/25 apportionment rejected; adjustment to be made in accordance with the reasons; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The parties are directed to bring in short minutes of order to give effect to the reasons by 7 May.' 'Costs are reserved.' 'The parties should provide written submissions, no longer than two pages, on costs by 30 April if they wish to do so.']