PROCTOR v HAEMMERLE [2006] NSWDC 108

PROCTOR v HAEMMERLE [2006] NSWDC 108

The court preferred Mr Proctor's evidence, found a de facto relationship existed at least between early 2002 and January 2003, and applied the s 17 exception because of Mr Proctor's substantial contributions. The deed dated 17 December 2002 did not preclude adjustment because it did not meet the statutory requirements for a domestic relationship agreement and was directed to an anticipated continuing relationship that ended within weeks. It would be unjust for Ms Haemmerle to retain a one half share of the Whiskey Creek Road property where Mr Proctor provided the purchase funds and expenses, although both parties contributed effort to improvements; $40,000 was appropriate for Ms Haemmerle.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Adjustment of Property Interests Under S 20 of the Property (relationships) Act 1984 / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Declaration made and property interests adjusted in favour of Mr Proctor; Ms Haemmerle ordered to transfer her interest or, alternatively, the property to be sold; costs awarded to Mr Proctor excluding indemnity costs.
Legal Topics
['adjustment of Property Interests' 'de Facto Relationship' 'close Personal Relationship' 'domestic Relationship Agreement' 'effect of Non Certified Deed']
['property Law' 'domestic Relationships'] ['adjustment of Property Interests' 'de Facto Relationship' 'close Personal Relationship' 'domestic Relationship Agreement' 'effect of Non Certified Deed']

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 Claim for Adjustment of Property Interests Under S 20 of the Property (relationships) Act 1984 / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the court should accept Mr Proctor's or Ms Haemmerle's evidence as to the nature of their relationship" 'Whether the relationship was a de facto relationship or a close personal relationship under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984' 'The effect of the deed dated 17 December 2002' 'What adjustment of property interests, if any, should be made']

Ratio Decidendi

The court preferred Mr Proctor's evidence, found a de facto relationship existed at least between early 2002 and January 2003, and applied the s 17 exception because of Mr Proctor's substantial contributions. The deed dated 17 December 2002 did not preclude adjustment because it did not meet the statutory requirements for a domestic relationship agreement and was directed to an anticipated continuing relationship that ended within weeks. It would be unjust for Ms Haemmerle to retain a one half share of the Whiskey Creek Road property where Mr Proctor provided the purchase funds and expenses, although both parties contributed effort to improvements; $40,000 was appropriate for Ms Haemmerle.

Court Disposition

Declaration made and property interests adjusted in favour of Mr Proctor; Ms Haemmerle ordered to transfer her interest or, alternatively, the property to be sold; costs awarded to Mr Proctor excluding indemnity costs.

Orders

  • ['Declaration pursuant to ss 5, 17, 20, 44 and 47 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 that the deed dated 17 December 2002 between the parties does not preclude adjustment of their property interests.' 'Ms Haemmerle is to transfer her interest in the property at Whiskey Creek Road, Dorrigo to Mr Proctor within...