30 May 2019
Mere directorship, shareholding, or beneficiary status in a trust holding company shares does not confer an interest in the company's land for the purposes of a s 42 notice of claim; there is no reasonably arguable constructive trust on the material, and ss 44/44C/9A operate on shares/value not to give a proprietary interest in company land; accordingly the notices of claim must be removed.
8 Aug 2018
Section 37 of the Property (Relationships) Act governs who may be heard where orders affect third parties; MHL will be entitled to be joined and heard on the appeal only if it first files in the Family Court an application to vary or discharge the interim restraining order (4) (Appendix B); upon filing that Family Court application MHL will be joined and may be heard on appeal only to the extent its interest in the property affected by that order is engaged; MHL may not raise broader issues (eg separate property status) beyond s 37 scope.
12 Jul 2016
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were challenges to primary factual findings under s 10 and related provisions and did not raise questions of law or public importance; the Court concluded the 5,523 B shares were separate property under s 10(1)(c) as purchased from a trust distribution, declined to apply s 9A to increase value, and upheld the 20% s 17 award.
6 Nov 2015
The High Court allowed the appeal in part: the 5,523 B shares acquired using the Mt Parker Trust distribution are separate property under s 10; the 2,877 B shares purchased with loan proceeds are relationship property; the application of relationship property to reduce company debt did not produce an increase in value for s 9A and that award was set aside; the wife's non‑financial sacrifices and actions in the late 1980s did sustain the separate property such that compensation under s 17 was appropriate and a 20% award of the relevant increase was upheld (resulting in $171,000 on reclassifica…
23 Jul 2012
The High Court upheld the Family Court: the de facto relationship commenced when Ms M moved to Kalgoorlie on 20 November 2005; the farm interest acquired in May 2005 remained separate property because it was acquired before the relationship commenced; s 9A did not apply because payments repaying mortgage increased equity but did not cause an increase in the farm's value; the s 17 award of $10,000 as compensation for contribution to mortgage payments was fair; no costs award to either party was appropriate.
30 Jul 2010
The homestead provisions apply only to the defined homestead area (as found by Judge O'Donovan, approx 7.7 hectares); the demarcation approach to defining family home/homestead is correct; increases in value of the remaining separate property are largely inflationary/passive and not attributable to relationship property or applicant's actions under s9A, so no recharacterisation occurs; the Family Court's discretionary s17 award of $20,000 stands; appeal dismissed.
19 May 2009
The Court held that a partner's beneficial interest in partnership assets can be relationship property and that where relationship property was applied to develop vineyards and where the non‑owning spouse's actions (including domestic work and paid employment) indirectly enabled or funded development, the whole of the increase in value falls to be treated as relationship property under s 9A; where increases arise under s 9A(2) parties' shares are determined by their respective contributions to the increase, and on the facts the Court of Appeal's allocations and deductions were justified; acco…