Beattie v Reid [2000] NSWSC 97

Beattie v Reid [2000] NSWSC 97

Leave was appropriate because the defendant showed that greater hardship would be caused if leave were refused than would be caused to the plaintiff if leave were granted, including potential claims based on contributions to the property, parenting contributions not available in the s 66G dispute, and possible treatment of post-separation payments, while the plaintiff would in any event incur costs in the existing dispute over sale proceeds. Although the delay from 1990 to 1999 was long and the explanation was not very satisfactory, promises of repayment and the defendant's health problems partly explained the delay and did not warrant refusing leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time Under S 18 of the Property (relationships) Act 1984 in Proceedings Concerning Jointly Owned Property / Notice of Motion Filed 6 October 1999
Outcome
Application granted; leave granted to commence proceedings under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 out of time.
Legal Topics
['de Facto Relationships' 'extension of Time' 'property Adjustment' 'hardship' 'joint Tenancy' 'costs']
['family Law' 'property Law' 'equity'] ['de Facto Relationships' 'extension of Time' 'property Adjustment' 'hardship' 'joint Tenancy' 'costs']

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 Extension of Time Under S 18 of the Property (relationships) Act 1984 in Proceedings Concerning Jointly Owned Property / Notice of Motion Filed 6 October 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted under s 18 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 to commence proceedings out of time.' 'Whether greater hardship would be caused to the applicant if leave were refused than would be caused to the respondent if leave were granted.' 'Whether the explanation for delay and other discretionary matters justified granting leave.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was appropriate because the defendant showed that greater hardship would be caused if leave were refused than would be caused to the plaintiff if leave were granted, including potential claims based on contributions to the property, parenting contributions not available in the s 66G dispute, and possible treatment of post-separation payments, while the plaintiff would in any event incur costs in the existing dispute over sale proceeds. Although the delay from 1990 to 1999 was long and the explanation was not very satisfactory, promises of repayment and the defendant's health problems partly explained the delay and did not warrant refusing leave.

Court Disposition

Application granted; leave granted to commence proceedings under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 out of time.

Orders

  • ['Order 1 in the Notice of Motion made.' "Each party's costs of the motion to be each party's costs in the cause, subject to submissions."]