Glover v Crispen [2009] NSWSC 425

Glover v Crispen [2009] NSWSC 425

Because the parties maintained separate assets and incomes during a short de facto relationship and made little relevant contribution to each other's property, they should generally retain their respective homes and investments. However, the plaintiff made financial contributions connected with household expenses and the defendant's salary sacrifice superannuation, and adjustments were also appropriate for the defendant's rental benefit and his contribution to the plaintiff's car. A just and equitable adjustment was payment of $85,000 by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Adjustment of Interests in Property Pursuant to S 20 of the Property (relationships) Act 1984 / Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part; the defendant was required to pay the plaintiff $85,000 by way of adjustment.
Legal Topics
['property Adjustment' 'financial Contributions' 'non Financial Contributions' 'superannuation' 'short Period of Cohabitation']
['property Relationships' 'de Facto Relationships' 'equity'] ['property Adjustment' 'financial Contributions' 'non Financial Contributions' 'superannuation' 'short Period of Cohabitation']

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 Interests in Property Pursuant to S 20 of the Property (relationships) Act 1984 / Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether an order should be made adjusting the parties' interests in property under s 20 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1984." 'What property and financial resources of the parties should be identified and valued at commencement, separation and hearing.' 'What financial and non-financial contributions each party made, including contributions connected with salary sacrifice superannuation, household expenses, rental benefit and car purchase.' "What adjustment, if any, was just and equitable having regard to the parties' contributions and the short de facto relationship."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties maintained separate assets and incomes during a short de facto relationship and made little relevant contribution to each other's property, they should generally retain their respective homes and investments. However, the plaintiff made financial contributions connected with household expenses and the defendant's salary sacrifice superannuation, and adjustments were also appropriate for the defendant's rental benefit and his contribution to the plaintiff's car. A just and equitable adjustment was payment of $85,000 by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; the defendant was required to pay the plaintiff $85,000 by way of adjustment.

Orders

  • ['The amount to be paid by way of adjustment to the plaintiff by the defendant is $85,000.']