KEENE v HARKNESS [1996] NSWCA 298

KEENE v HARKNESS [1996] NSWCA 298

The Master erred in failing to take the respondent's superannuation interests into account as a financial resource and failing to properly apply s 27 in relation to maintenance, as well as misapplying the rule regarding costs. Those errors warranted setting aside his orders and substituting new orders for property adjustment and maintenance.

Parties
Appellant: Keene; Respondent: Harkness
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Master in Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Master's orders set aside and substituted with new orders regarding property and maintenance; costs awarded to appellant.
Legal Topics
Property Adjustment, Maintenance Orders, Superannuation Entitlements, Homemaker Contributions, Expectation and Reliance Interests, Costs
Family Law De Facto Relationships Property Adjustment Maintenance Orders Superannuation Entitlements Homemaker Contributions Expectation and Reliance Interests 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keene

Appellant

Harkness

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Master in Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred by not having regard to the appellant's reliance and expectation interests in property adjustment under s 20 of the De Facto Relationships Act 1984
  2. 2 Whether respondent's superannuation entitlements should have been treated as 'property' or a 'financial resource' and taken into account
  3. 3 Whether sufficient weight was given to appellant's contributions as homemaker and the duration of the relationship

Ratio Decidendi

The Master erred in failing to take the respondent's superannuation interests into account as a financial resource and failing to properly apply s 27 in relation to maintenance, as well as misapplying the rule regarding costs. Those errors warranted setting aside his orders and substituting new orders for property adjustment and maintenance.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Master's orders set aside and substituted with new orders regarding property and maintenance; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay appellant $80,500 by 30 April 1997.
  • Interest to accrue after 30 April 1997 on any unpaid portion of $80,500 under s 95 of the Supreme Court Act.