Delany v Burgess [2006] NSWSC 1420

Delany v Burgess [2006] NSWSC 1420

The Plaintiff did not establish that a de facto relationship existed during any of the periods in question, as the nature of her relationship with the Defendant was essentially commercial, akin to a boarder-proprietor arrangement with added sexual involvement. Further, all asserted periods were outside the limitation period and the Plaintiff made no application for extension. Even if a de facto relationship existed, no substantial contributions by the Plaintiff were shown so as to warrant an adjustment of property interests.

Parties
Plaintiff: Leanne Delany; Defendant: Stephen John Burgess
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Property Adjustment Under Property (relationships) Act 1984 (nsw) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
De Facto Relationships, Adjustment of Property Interests, Limitation Periods, Contributions as Homemaker or Parent
Family Law De Facto Relationships Adjustment of Property Interests Limitation Periods Contributions as Homemaker or Parent

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 18
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leanne Delany

Plaintiff

Stephen John Burgess

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Property Adjustment Under Property (relationships) Act 1984 (nsw) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a de facto relationship existed between the Plaintiff and Defendant during the asserted periods
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff's claim for adjustment of property interests was out of time
  3. 3 Whether contributions by the Plaintiff entitled her to relief under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff did not establish that a de facto relationship existed during any of the periods in question, as the nature of her relationship with the Defendant was essentially commercial, akin to a boarder-proprietor arrangement with added sexual involvement. Further, all asserted periods were outside the limitation period and the Plaintiff made no application for extension. Even if a de facto relationship existed, no substantial contributions by the Plaintiff were shown so as to warrant an adjustment of property interests.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Proceedings dismissed.
  • Plaintiff to pay Defendant's costs.