Taylor v Webster [1999] NSWSC 48
The plaintiff was entitled to an order of $25,000 reflecting her predominancy as homemaker and parent, but not to an equal share of all assets, given the defendant’s substantially greater financial contributions and ownership of assets prior to the relationship.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 February 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Property Adjustment Under De Facto Relationships Act / Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiff awarded $25,000. Claims to assets of Postgap Pty Limited discharged. No order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['de Facto Relationship' 'property Adjustment' 'contributions' 'company Asset Division']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Property Adjustment Under De Facto Relationships Act / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Adjustment of property interests under De Facto Relationships Act 1984' 'Respective contributions (financial and non-financial) of parties' 'Entitlement to company assets and loan account' 'Final determination of financial relationship']
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiff was entitled to an order of $25,000 reflecting her predominancy as homemaker and parent, but not to an equal share of all assets, given the defendant’s substantially greater financial contributions and ownership of assets prior to the relationship.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff awarded $25,000. Claims to assets of Postgap Pty Limited discharged. No order as to costs.
Orders
- ['Defendant to pay plaintiff $25,000 within 28 days.' 'Upon payment, any claim or entitlement by plaintiff in respect to Postgap Pty Limited is discharged.' "Liberty to apply on seven days' notice for implementation of order 2." 'No order as to costs; each party to bear own costs.' 'Exhibits may be returned.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment