Waterfield v Capaldi [2008] NSWDC 308

Waterfield v Capaldi [2008] NSWDC 308

The plaintiff had made superior financial contributions, but his claim about assets introduced into the relationship was grossly and apparently deliberately overstated. The defendant's evidence about substantial non-financial contributions was preferred, particularly because the relationship arrangements disadvantaged her ability to establish and progress her career. An equitable adjustment of the parties' interests was therefore 60 per cent to the plaintiff and 40 per cent to the defendant, requiring a cash payment of $53,401 by the plaintiff to the defendant in conjunction with transfer arrangements for the Valentine property.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S 20 of the Property (relationships) Act 1984 to Adjust Property Interests Following Separation of De Facto Partners / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing; Costs Stood Over
Outcome
Property interests adjusted 60 per cent to the plaintiff and 40 per cent to the defendant; defendant to retain the Valentine property subject to the ordered arrangements; costs stood over.
Legal Topics
['adjustment of Property Interests' 'financial Contributions' 'non Financial Contributions' 'career Disadvantage' 'overstatement of Assets']
['property Relationships' 'de Facto Relationships'] ['adjustment of Property Interests' 'financial Contributions' 'non Financial Contributions' 'career Disadvantage' 'overstatement of Assets']

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 Pursuant to S 20 of the Property (relationships) Act 1984 to Adjust Property Interests Following Separation of De Facto Partners / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing; Costs Stood Over

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What were the assets and liabilities of the parties at the time of hearing.' 'What financial and non-financial contributions each party made to the relationship.' "Whether the parties' property interests should be adjusted equitably under s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984." "What percentage division of the parties' net assets should be ordered."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff had made superior financial contributions, but his claim about assets introduced into the relationship was grossly and apparently deliberately overstated. The defendant's evidence about substantial non-financial contributions was preferred, particularly because the relationship arrangements disadvantaged her ability to establish and progress her career. An equitable adjustment of the parties' interests was therefore 60 per cent to the plaintiff and 40 per cent to the defendant, requiring a cash payment of $53,401 by the plaintiff to the defendant in conjunction with transfer arrangements for the Valentine property.

Court Disposition

Property interests adjusted 60 per cent to the plaintiff and 40 per cent to the defendant; defendant to retain the Valentine property subject to the ordered arrangements; costs stood over.

Orders

  • ['Within 10 weeks of the date of these orders the defendant is to discharge the mortgage secured on the property situated at and known as 42 Christopher Avenue, Valentine.' 'Simultaneously with compliance by the defendant with order 1, the plaintiff is to do all such acts and execute all such documents as are...