It was ‘repugnant to justice’ and ‘completely unfair’ Justice Grice ruled for Tony Kidd to receive a 50/50 split of relationship property when he brought no property of value into a six year relationship. He was awarded thirty per cent of the net equity in the home owned by his former partner.
The default rule in the Property (Relationship) Act is that relationship property is split 50/50 should partners separate. Departures from this rule require proof equal division would be repugnant to justice or completely unfair.
Mr Kidd moved into Ms Russell’s Waitara home in late 2010. She had purchased the home months previously with proceeds of a relationship property settlement at the end of her previous 25 year marriage. It was second time round for both. He contributed no assets to their new relationship beyond some furniture, his work tools and a work vehicle. The court was told Mr Kidd was committed to paying $1040 per year to settle a debt after his 2008 conviction and imprisonment for a $38,000 fraud. Their relationship came to an end after nearly six years. Improvements had been made by Mr Kidd to the Waitara home with the benefit of a bank loan. The only additional assets purchased were replacement motor vehicles; depreciating assets. The Waitara home was the only relationship asset of any value. They had no children; Ms Russell has two from her earlier relationship.
At the end of their relationship, Mr Kidd was described as being well on the way towards rebuilding his future wealth: he had a job and steady salary; an upgraded vehicle; a relationship claim against the family home and the benefit of not having to pay rent as had been the case before their relationship. By contrast, Ms Russell was economically disadvantaged: her earlier relationship property payout put into buying a home was now diluted by Mr Kidd’s claim forcing a sale of the property; she worked part-time as an unskilled worker.
Justice Grice ruled the $139,300 net proceeds from sale of the home be split thirty per cent to Mr Kidd: seventy per cent to Ms Russell.
Kidd v. Russell – High Court (22.11.18)
19.009