Proudman v Dickason [2008] NSWSC 681

Proudman v Dickason [2008] NSWSC 681

Plaintiff’s greater non-financial contributions as homemaker and parent over a long period outweighed the defendant’s larger financial contributions, justifying an adjustment in her favour. A just and equitable order, taking into account contributions, personal expenditure patterns, means and needs including superannuation disparity, is for the defendant to pay the plaintiff $80,000, with her bearing responsibility for the debt, not as a percentage of asset pool but as a lump sum adjustment. Defendant to pay 50% of plaintiff’s costs as she was substantially, though not wholly, successful and her settlement position was more reasonable.

Parties
Plaintiff: Gail June Proudman; Defendant: David Roy Dickason
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 (nsw) for Property Adjustment (de Facto Relationship) / Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiff substantially successful; adjustive order made; final orders to be settled upon parties bringing short minutes of order. Plaintiff to receive $80,000 from defendant. Defendant to pay 50% of plaintiff's costs.
Legal Topics
De Facto Relationships, Property Adjustment, Assessment of Contributions, Costs Orders
Family Law Equity De Facto Relationships Property Adjustment Assessment of Contributions Costs Orders

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gail June Proudman

Plaintiff

David Roy Dickason

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 (nsw) for Property Adjustment (de Facto Relationship) / Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Assessment of financial and non-financial contributions under s 20(1) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW)
  2. 2 Effect of expenditure on gambling and alcohol on property adjustment
  3. 3 Relevance of superannuation disparity to property adjustment

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff’s greater non-financial contributions as homemaker and parent over a long period outweighed the defendant’s larger financial contributions, justifying an adjustment in her favour. A just and equitable order, taking into account contributions, personal expenditure patterns, means and needs including superannuation disparity, is for the defendant to pay the plaintiff $80,000, with her bearing responsibility for the debt, not as a percentage of asset pool but as a lump sum adjustment. Defendant to pay 50% of plaintiff’s costs as she was substantially, though not wholly, successful and her settlement position was more reasonable.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff substantially successful; adjustive order made; final orders to be settled upon parties bringing short minutes of order. Plaintiff to receive $80,000 from defendant. Defendant to pay 50% of plaintiff's costs.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay plaintiff $80,000 as a lump sum adjustment under s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW), in light of contributions and circumstances.
  • Plaintiff to be solely responsible for indebtedness to St George Bank secured over property.