A de facto spouse’s relationship property entitlements could be calculated at date of a court hearing despite her claim being filed outside the three year statutory time limit the High Court ruled, allowing Christine Lillico to share in an increased value of a former family home.
Her de facto partner Michael Sugrue argued values should be taken as at date of their separation, some four years previously. Share of a $170,000 capital appreciation was in dispute.
Property (Relationships) Act sets a three year time limit for de facto spouse claims to relationship property.
Mr Lillico got Family Court approval to bring her claim out of time.
The High Court was told Mr Sugrue purchased the property in 1988.
Ms Lillico lived there with him over the period 2010-2018.
Three years into their relationship, she signed a property sharing agreement at Mr Sugrue’s behest, setting out a formula for division of relationship property should their relationship end. She was to receive half the value of their home after deduction for any balance owed on his mortgage and a further deduction of $380,000 being their agreed value of Mr Sugrue’s house when their relationship started.
Mr Sugrue said this formula should apply to values as at 2018, when they separated; $40,500 being Ms Lillico’s share.
Since that date, a mortgage over the property has been partly repaid and the property value has increased.
Mr Sugrue claimed his former spouse should not benefit from windfall gains flowing from her own delay in filing a claim.
The general rule is that property valuations in a disputed relationship property claim are calculated as at date of a court hearing.
Justice Paulsen ruled there was no reason to depart from the general rule in this case.
Their relationship property agreement did not spell out a date from which valuations should be calculated.
Mr Sugrue’s reluctance to engage with Ms Lillico’s claim in part explained delays in getting to a court hearing, he said.
Values assessed as at the initial Family Court hearing date resulted in Mr Sugrue being ordered to pay Ms Lillico $74,900.
Sugrue v. Lillico – High Court (12.03.26)
26.101