Jacqueline Sands -v- David Leslie Henderson [2007] NSWSC 1200

Jacqueline Sands -v- David Leslie Henderson [2007] NSWSC 1200

The Plaintiff failed to establish any miscarriage of justice under section 41 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984. The later auction sale price, marketing range, agency material and reserve figures did not prove that the Hastings Point property was worth more than $2,450,000 on 3 October 2006, and did not prove that the Defendant knew the agreed valuation was incorrect or suppressed that fact. Because there was no evidence impugning the integrity of the judicial process that produced the consent orders, the Plaintiff's notice of motion was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 Concerning Adjustment of Property Interests in a De Facto Relationship / Hearing of the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Filed on 8 March 2007 to Vary or Set Aside Consent Orders and the Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed on 29 June 2007 Seeking Summary Dismissal
Outcome
Plaintiff's notice of motion dismissed; Plaintiff ordered to pay the Defendant's costs of both notices of motion.
Legal Topics
['setting Aside Consent Orders' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'suppression of Evidence' 'mistake of Fact' 'property Valuation' 'full and Frank Disclosure' 'summary Dismissal']
['family Law' 'de Facto Relationships' 'property Settlement' 'civil Procedure'] ['setting Aside Consent Orders' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'suppression of Evidence' 'mistake of Fact' 'property Valuation' 'full and Frank Disclosure' 'summary Dismissal']

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

Proceedings Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 Concerning Adjustment of Property Interests in a De Facto Relationship / Hearing of the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Filed on 8 March 2007 to Vary or Set Aside Consent Orders and the Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed on 29 June 2007 Seeking Summary Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Plaintiff established a miscarriage of justice under section 41(1)(a) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 by reason of suppression of evidence or any other circumstance.' 'Whether the later auction sale price and sales material for the Hastings Point property were evidence that the agreed valuation used for the consent orders was incorrect on 3 October 2006.' 'Whether the Defendant knew on 3 October 2006 that the agreed value of the Hastings Point property was incorrect and suppressed that fact.' 'Whether the consent orders should be varied or set aside.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff failed to establish any miscarriage of justice under section 41 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984. The later auction sale price, marketing range, agency material and reserve figures did not prove that the Hastings Point property was worth more than $2,450,000 on 3 October 2006, and did not prove that the Defendant knew the agreed valuation was incorrect or suppressed that fact. Because there was no evidence impugning the integrity of the judicial process that produced the consent orders, the Plaintiff's notice of motion was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's notice of motion dismissed; Plaintiff ordered to pay the Defendant's costs of both notices of motion.

Orders

  • ['I order that the notice of motion filed by the Plaintiff on 8 March 2007 be dismissed.' 'I order that the Plaintiff pay the costs of the Defendant of the aforesaid notice of motion and of the notice of motion filed by the Defendant on 29 June 2007.']