24 May 2012
K V V HC WN CIV-2011-485-002682
- Citation
- openlaw-6edb3387_77ba_4bdc_a4a0_0007283c803f.pdf
- Court
- High Court
No s21P agreement existed for Tamana because the sale contract and conduct did not evidence objective agreement on future division; Family Court's valuation of Tamana was quashed because it misdirected itself by prioritising parties' use and motives over market value; Family Court erred in setting aside the apartment transfer under s44 because there was insufficient evidence that the appellant intended to defeat the respondent's claims or had the requisite knowledge of imminent law change to infer such intent.