Cano v Schiliro [2008] NSWSC 992

Cano v Schiliro [2008] NSWSC 992

The plaintiff was not entitled to maintenance because, although the relationship adversely affected her employment, she led no evidence of any course or programme of training or education that would increase her earning capacity. A property adjustment was nevertheless just and equitable because the twelve and a half year relationship involved substantial non-financial homemaker and caring contributions by the plaintiff, all substantial property was held by the defendant, and his assets increased during the relationship; those contributions warranted an adjustment of $300,000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Adjustment of Property Interests Under S 20 of the Property (relationships) Act 1984 and Claim for Maintenance Under S 27 of the Act / Hearing
Outcome
Property adjustment granted; maintenance claim refused; costs to be heard.
Legal Topics
['de Facto Relationship' 'property Adjustment' 'maintenance' 'non Financial Contributions' 'homemaker Contributions']
['family Law' 'property Relationships'] ['de Facto Relationship' 'property Adjustment' 'maintenance' 'non Financial Contributions' 'homemaker Contributions']

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 for Adjustment of Property Interests Under S 20 of the Property (relationships) Act 1984 and Claim for Maintenance Under S 27 of the Act / Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should receive an adjustment of the parties' property interests under s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984." 'Whether the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance under s 27 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984.' "How the plaintiff's non-financial, homemaker and caring contributions should be reflected where the defendant owned substantial assets before and during the relationship."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not entitled to maintenance because, although the relationship adversely affected her employment, she led no evidence of any course or programme of training or education that would increase her earning capacity. A property adjustment was nevertheless just and equitable because the twelve and a half year relationship involved substantial non-financial homemaker and caring contributions by the plaintiff, all substantial property was held by the defendant, and his assets increased during the relationship; those contributions warranted an adjustment of $300,000.

Court Disposition

Property adjustment granted; maintenance claim refused; costs to be heard.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is to pay the plaintiff $300,000 by way of property adjustment.' 'No order for maintenance.']