De Facto Property Split After Separation Support: How should post-separation payments and career sacrifice shape a “just and equitable” lump sum order under the De Facto Relationships Act 1996 (SA)?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case H v G [2005] SASC 344 (File No SCCIV-04-1336), this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing: Supreme Court of South Australia (Full Court), on appeal from the District Court of South Australia
Presiding Judge: Sulan J, White J and Layton J (reasons delivered by Layton J; Sulan J and White J agreed)
Cause of Action: Appeal and cross-appeal concerning property adjustment orders under the De Facto Relationships Act 1996 (SA), and costs orders
Judgment Date: 14 September 2005
Hearing Date: 6–7 April 2005
Core Keywords:
Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: De facto relationship property adjustment
Keyword 3: “Just and equitable” discretion
Keyword 4: Post-separation payments and rent-free occupation
Keyword 5: Loss of earning capacity and expectations of marriage
Keyword 6: Appellate restraint and changed case on appeal

Background

This case sits at the uncomfortable intersection between everyday relationship economics and formal legal accounting. Two former de facto partners had lived together for more than a decade, raised a child, accumulated a substantial asset pool, then separated. After separation, one partner continued paying mortgage and household outgoings while the other remained in the former home with the child. Years later, when the home was sold and funds were divided, the dispute did not fade. It intensified—because the later litigation required a court to put a dollar value on sacrifices that do not come with receipts, while also deciding whether large post-separation payments should reduce the recipient’s share of property.

Importantly, the Full Court was not re-running the relationship. It was deciding whether the trial judge’s discretionary property division order was affected by legal error.

Core Disputes and Claims

The dispute was not simply “who deserves more”. The Court was required to determine:

1. Whether the trial judge’s property division—made under s 10 of the De Facto Relationships Act 1996 (SA)—was “just and equitable” and legally defensible on appeal.
2. Whether, and how, the trial judge was entitled to weigh post-separation payments and rent-free occupation when assessing contributions and outcomes.
3. Whether the trial judge could properly treat diminished earning capacity, lost career opportunity, and expectations of marriage as matters relevant to the “just and equitable” outcome.
4. Whether specific items, including an education fund and superannuation, were properly treated as part of the property pool.
5. Whether costs should have been ordered differently, including whether settlement offers should have triggered indemnity-type consequences.

Relief sought on appeal: the Appellant sought to set aside the property and costs orders and to obtain repayment of amounts already paid, or alternatively a reduced lump sum.
Relief sought on cross-appeal: the Respondent sought a higher adjustment outcome and more favourable costs orders.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

How the Relationship Began and Became Financially Interwoven

The parties commenced living together as de facto partners in 1986 and separated in 1998. A child was born in 1991. Their financial arrangements followed a pattern familiar to many households: one partner became the primary income earner while the other increasingly carried the domestic and parenting load.

Early on, the relationship contained an imbalance that later mattered in court. The income-earning partner initially contributed little to household expenses, later adopted a consistent pattern of funding rent or mortgage and major living costs, and eventually funded substantial renovations. The homemaking partner left employment during pregnancy and did not return to the workforce, with the evidence showing significant difficulty re-entering work later.

The joint home became the relationship’s financial centre of gravity. It was purchased in joint names, improved over time, and sold years after separation for a large sum. That home represented not only the largest asset, but also a timeline: purchase during the relationship, occupation during cohabitation, continued occupation after separation, and eventual sale while litigation was in progress.

Decisive Moments That Led to Litigation

Two moments typically turn relationship disputes into litigation.

First, separation does not always end economic dependence. Here, after separation, one partner continued to support the other and the child in a way that blurred the line between support and contribution: mortgage payments, cash payments, and paying outgoings while the other partner remained in the home.

Second, time passes and narratives harden. When the home was sold and proceeds divided, the question became whether earlier support should be treated as a “down payment” on a later property settlement, or simply part of the lived reality of post-separation parenting and housing.

A separate conflict strand complicated matters: there were allegations of assault and allegations of concealed assets. Those issues did not ultimately succeed, but they influenced costs arguments and the time spent in litigation.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

The party seeking the larger adjustment relied on evidence designed to show:

1. A long relationship with a child and sustained homemaking and parenting contributions.
2. Withdrawal from the workforce, including foregone promotions and diminished capacity to regain a comparable career later.
3. The practical reality that the other party’s capacity to build professional income was enabled by domestic labour performed within the household.
4. The asset pool at trial, including cash holdings and the continuing disparity in financial security and earning capacity.
5. Assertions that the other party’s financial position may not have been fully transparent, supported by accounting analysis and the absence of complete banking records for certain periods.

Concrete evidence referred to in the proceedings included accounting reports and schedules of assets and liabilities; bank accounts; records of the home sale proceeds; and expenditure “funds flow” material tracking receipts and spending.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

The opposing party sought to reduce or eliminate the adjustment by emphasising:

1. The source of funds used to acquire the main asset, including a large sum connected to a professional practice that was said to be primarily that party’s contribution.
2. Extensive post-separation payments, including mortgage payments and outgoings, cash payments, and alleged value of rent-free occupation.
3. Assertions that the other party dissipated funds after the home sale, including significant personal spending and legal costs.
4. Challenges to the characterisation of items in the property pool, including an education fund and superannuation, suggesting they should not be treated as readily available property.

A significant evidentiary feature was that some claimed cash payments were disputed as to amount and method, and the trial judge was not prepared to resolve the discrepancy with mathematical precision.

Core Dispute Points

1. Timing question: should contributions and assessment be anchored at separation or at trial?
2. Post-separation benefit question: should the value of rent-free occupation and post-separation payments be “brought to account” as an offset reducing the recipient’s share?
3. Future security question: to what extent could the court consider diminished earning capacity and future financial security when ordering a one-off property adjustment?
4. Appellate question: did the trial judge commit an appealable error of principle, or was the complaint merely disagreement within a permissible discretionary range?

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

How Affidavits Functioned as Litigation Strategy

In de facto property disputes, affidavits are not just storytelling—they are positioning documents. They convert a relationship history into admissible, issue-focused propositions: who paid what, who contributed in what way, why decisions were made, and what reliance was placed on the relationship’s permanence.

In this case type, affidavits commonly do three strategic things:

1. Lock in a chronology that can survive cross-examination.
2. Translate domestic labour into court-recognisable contributions by describing frequency, responsibility, and the opportunity costs of leaving employment.
3. Frame post-separation payments either as necessary support for the child’s stability, or as a benefit warranting an offset in the property division.

The underlying judgment demonstrates that the trial judge treated contested claims about payments, including disputed cash payments, with caution. Where a party’s evidence lacked documentary support or conflicted with other evidence, the court avoided absolute findings on precise quantum and focused on what could safely be concluded on the weight of evidence.

Comparison of “Same Fact, Different Affidavit” Dynamics

A single event can be expressed in affidavits in two radically different ways:

• “I remained in the home with the child because it was the stable base for schooling and routines; the other party chose to continue paying the mortgage as part of supporting the child.”
• “The other party occupied the home rent-free for years; I paid the mortgage and outgoings; it is unfair to ignore that benefit when dividing property.”

Both can be partly true, yet the legal question is what relevance that fact has to a “just and equitable” division, not which narrative feels morally satisfying.

Strategic Intent Behind Procedural Directions About Affidavits

Judicial case management tends to focus affidavits on:

1. Identifying the property pool and documenting contested items.
2. Forcing parties to particularise claims about payments, dissipation, and hidden assets.
3. Narrowing issues so the hearing time is spent on determinative disputes rather than generalised grievance.

This case illustrates why: on appeal, the Court criticised the burden created by voluminous and repetitive submissions, and highlighted the practical importance of focused, synthesised argumentation in discretionary matters.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Pre-hearing Procedural Arrangements

Before final determination, the litigation required procedural steps typical of long-running property disputes:

1. Extension of time for the property adjustment application under the De Facto Relationships Act 1996 (SA), ultimately consented to.
2. Management of interim dealings with sale proceeds from the jointly owned home, including holding funds pending outcome.
3. Directions relating to disclosure of financial records, including banking material and accounting evidence.
4. Costs-related procedural steps involving offers of compromise and Calderbank correspondence.

Although specific dates are not required here, the structure of the proceedings shows repeated attempts at settlement and subsequent disputes about the costs consequences of withdrawn offers.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

Even though the Full Court hearing concerned an appeal, the heart of the dispute was built at trial through cross-examination on competing financial narratives:

• One party asserted extensive post-separation support and sought to quantify it precisely.
• The other party disputed the extent of cash payments and challenged attempts to treat support as a later offset.
• Both parties attacked each other’s spending behaviours after separation and after the sale of the home.
• Accounting witnesses were used to reconstruct funds flow and to test whether alleged “surplus” income indicated hidden assets.

A critical forensic feature was the court’s approach to contested cash payments: the trial judge was unwilling to accept either extreme, and the appellate reasons emphasise that such reluctance is not error where precision is not safely attainable.

Core Evidence Confrontation: The Decisive Pressure Points

The decisive conflict points were:

1. Post-separation mortgage and outgoings: were these payments a benefit to the other party requiring a reduction, or were they part of a shared parenting and housing outcome that also benefited the payer?
2. Rent-free occupation: should notional rent be applied as an adjustment, and if so, how?
3. Career sacrifice: was the homemaking partner’s reduced earning capacity a relevant factor, or an attempt to convert property division into ongoing maintenance?
4. Changed case on appeal: the appellate court was sharply critical where the appealing party attempted to reframe the entire argument with new figures and new approaches not pressed at trial.

Judicial Reasoning: How the Facts Drove the Result

The Full Court’s reasoning was anchored in orthodox appellate restraint in discretionary decisions: an appeal is not a second trial, and disagreement with weight is not enough.

“The orders involve the exercise of discretion… [House v The King] set out… that some error must be shown… such as that a judge has acted upon a wrong principle; has given weight to extraneous or irrelevant matters; has failed to give weight to relevant matters… Further, a judgment may be challenged if… the result is so unreasonable or plainly unjust that the Court will infer that an error has been made.”

This statement was determinative because it framed the entire appellate task: the question was not whether the Full Court would have arrived at a different number, but whether the trial judge’s approach disclosed appealable error. Once the Court found no error of principle, most complaints collapsed into mere disagreement.

The reasoning also emphasised the boundaries of changing a party’s case on appeal, especially where the new approach could have been met by evidence at trial.

“It is inappropriate and prejudicial for the [Appellant] to now resile from that concession… especially when no argument has been put… that the concession was erroneously made.”

This mattered because the appealing party’s attempt to seek repayment and assert a radically different position contradicted concessions and the way the case had been conducted at trial. The Court treated that as an important practical reason not to disturb the discretionary outcome.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

Orders and Outcome

The Full Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal. The trial-level outcome therefore remained in place, including:

1. A lump sum property adjustment order requiring payment to one party.
2. Dismissal of attempts to obtain indemnity-type costs orders, with costs generally ordered on a party/party basis.
3. Rejection of challenges to the treatment of specific assets, including the education fund and superannuation as part of the asset pool.

The Full Court’s dismissal of both appeal and cross-appeal reflects a conclusion that the trial judge’s discretionary evaluation fell within the allowable range and was not infected by error.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

This case is jurisprudentially valuable because it demonstrates how Australian courts police the boundary between:

• property division and maintenance-like reasoning, and
• robust discretion and appellate interference.

It also shows a recurring trap in relationship litigation: parties often believe that “unfairness” is a legal ground of appeal. The appellate court’s method is stricter. It asks: where is the legal error?

A further unusual feature is the Court’s critique of the appellant’s voluminous and repetitive appeal material. That critique has practical value: it signals that clarity and focus are not stylistic preferences but forensic advantages.

Judgment Points

1. Appellate restraint is the controlling lens. Discretionary outcomes are protected unless error is shown, and a “generous ambit” exists where reasonable judges may differ.
2. Post-separation payments are context-sensitive. Payments may be recognised as “substantial” without being converted into an automatic offset.
3. Rent-free occupation is not automatically monetised. Notional rent may be rejected where occupation also benefited the payer and child stability, and where the underlying purpose was consistent with parenting realities.
4. Career sacrifice can matter if linked to contributions and relationship consequences. The Court treated diminished earning capacity not as compensation for disappointment, but as a relevant aspect of “means” and the consequences of contributions.
5. Expectations of marriage are legally dangerous if framed as grievance, but relevant if tied to reliance and opportunity cost. The Court treated “expectation” as explanatory of choices, not as a free-standing entitlement.
6. Windfall analysis depends on character. A payment tied to professional practice was not treated like a lottery windfall; it was characterised as a contribution traceable to one party.
7. Education funds and superannuation may be treated as property where control and surrender rights support that conclusion.
8. Costs consequences require strict attention to rules and the framing of offers. Withdrawn offers and Calderbank letters do not automatically trigger solicitor-and-client costs.

Legal Basis

The central statutory framework was:

• De Facto Relationships Act 1996 (SA) s 10: power to divide property in a way that is just and equitable
• De Facto Relationships Act 1996 (SA) s 11: mandatory considerations including financial and non-financial contributions and parenting contributions, plus “other relevant matters”
• De Facto Relationships Act 1996 (SA) s 12: duty to finally resolve questions, avoiding further proceedings
• Supreme Court Rules 1987 (SA) r 41.01: offer procedures relevant to costs
• Limitations of Actions Act 1936 (SA) s 48: extension of time for personal injury claim, ultimately refused at trial level

On appeal, the controlling legal standard was the principle in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 governing appellate interference with discretion, reinforced by Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513.

Evidence Chain

The Court’s logic can be expressed as:

Conclusion = Proven asset pool at trial + characterisation of contributions + evaluation of relevance of post-separation conduct + permissible discretion + absence of appealable error

Key evidentiary strands included:

1. Asset pool at trial: cash holdings, partnership interest, goodwill, proceeds of home sale, superannuation, and the education fund.
2. Acquisition history: source of funds used to purchase the home, including the practice-related payment.
3. Post-separation payments: mortgage, outgoings, maintenance-type payments, and disputed cash amounts.
4. Funds flow evidence: expenditure after sale of the home, including legal and accounting costs and repayments to a parent.
5. Employment evidence: the homemaking partner’s departure from workforce and difficulty returning, contrasted with the other party’s increasing professional income.

The Court did not require perfect arithmetic. It required a defensible, evidence-based overall assessment.

Judicial Original Quotation

“In all the circumstances I do not consider this is an appropriate case in which there should be some adjustment to account for notional rent.”

This was determinative because it reveals a judicial choice about how to treat rent-free occupation. The Court did not deny the benefit existed. It concluded that, in context, it should not be transformed into a mathematical offset, particularly where the payer’s own circumstances and the child’s stability made the arrangement mutually beneficial.

“The existence of an error… is an indispensable condition of a successful appeal.”

This statement matters because it neutralises the emotional force of “unfairness” arguments. Unless the appellant can point to wrong principle, irrelevant considerations, failure to consider relevant matters, or a plainly unjust outcome suggesting error, the appeal fails even if another judge might have chosen a different figure.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The losing party’s failure was not primarily factual—it was forensic and structural.

1. Recasting the case on appeal. The appellant attempted to deploy new figures, a new method of staging contributions, and even a position inconsistent with concessions at trial. Appellate courts resist such reshaping because it undermines the integrity of trial proceedings and can create prejudice where evidence could have been led.
2. Treating support as a credit ledger. The appellant pushed an approach that effectively treated post-separation support as a running account to be repaid through property division. The Court accepted the payments were substantial, but held the trial judge was entitled to treat them as contextual rather than decisive.
3. Over-reliance on mathematical certainty where evidence was contested. The disputed cash payments and differences in schedules meant the judge could not safely make precise findings. The appellate court treated that caution as appropriate.
4. Failure to show error, not merely disagreement. Many grounds were essentially “the judge should have weighed this more heavily”. That is not enough under House v The King and Norbis v Norbis.
5. Costs arguments lacked the “special feature” threshold. Indemnity-like costs require something unusual, such as improper conduct. Withdrawn offers and short-lived Calderbank letters, without more, did not compel a different order.

Key to Victory

The successful party’s “victory” on appeal was built on structural advantages rather than rhetorical flourish:

1. Anchoring submissions to the appellate standard: error, not preference.
2. Defending the trial judge’s discretion as a permissible global assessment rather than a flawed calculation.
3. Explaining post-separation housing and payments as consistent with parenting needs and shared benefit, rather than unilateral enrichment.
4. Maintaining consistency between trial presentation and appellate position.

Reference to Comparable Authorities

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499: sets the appellate test for interfering with discretionary decisions; error of principle or plainly unjust outcome required.
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513: explains why discretionary judgments allow legitimate differences of opinion and why appellate courts must not substitute their preferred outcome absent error.
Hogg v Roberts (2003) 87 SASR 248: constrains the breadth of “other relevant matters” while recognising “immediate needs” as relevant; warns against turning property division into grievance remedy.
Arnold v Dalton (2002) 84 SASR 482: supports consideration of contributions, including parenting and post-separation contributions, up to the time of order.
Evans v Marmont (1997) 42 NSWLR 70: clarifies the relevance of “needs and means” and contextual factors as subsidiary to contributions in comparable statutory schemes.
Ferris v Winslade (1998) 22 Fam LR 725: illustrates how future earning capacity and future needs can be treated as relevant in property adjustment where the statutory structure permits broad relevance.
Kennon v Kennon (1997) 22 Fam LR 1: cautions against treating a high standard of living during the relationship as a prepayment cancelling contributions at settlement.

Implications

1. If you keep paying after separation, it does not automatically mean you get “credited back” later. Courts often treat post-separation support as part of the real-world mechanics of parenting, housing, and transition.
2. The strongest legal arguments are not always the loudest. The winning approach is often the one that aligns with the court’s legal task, not the party’s emotional narrative.
3. Career sacrifice is legally meaningful when it is evidence-based and causally linked to relationship contributions, not framed as punishment or moral blame.
4. In discretionary property cases, appeals are hard. Unless you can point to a clear legal misstep, the result usually stands.
5. Settlement letters can matter, but only when crafted with procedural discipline. A poorly framed, short-lived, or withdrawn offer tends to lose its bite.

Q&A Session

Q1: If one party pays the mortgage after separation while the other stays in the home, does the paying party automatically get more of the property?

No. The court may recognise the payments as “substantial”, but whether they change the final division depends on context: who benefited, why the arrangement existed, whether the payments also protected the paying party’s equity, and how parenting and housing needs shaped the arrangement.

Q2: Can a court take into account that one party stopped working to raise the child and now cannot easily return to a career?

Yes, where the evidence shows the loss of earning capacity is a consequence of relationship contributions and parenting roles, and where the statutory scheme permits the court to consider “other relevant matters” connected to a just and equitable division.

Q3: Why do many appeals fail even when the appellant believes the outcome is unfair?

Because the appellate court does not decide what it prefers. It decides whether the trial judge made a legal error. In discretionary decisions, reasonable judges can differ. Unless the appellant shows wrong principle, irrelevant considerations, failure to consider relevant matters, or a plainly unjust result suggesting error, the appeal fails.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

Chapter A1: Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype

De facto relationship property adjustment dispute involving post-separation payments, rent-free occupation, and diminished earning capacity considerations under the De Facto Relationships Act 1996 (SA)

Judgment Nature Definition

Final appellate judgment (appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; trial orders left intact)

Chapter A2: Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

① De Facto Relationships & Matrimonial Property & Parenting Matters (Family Law)

Core Test: Existence of De Facto Relationship — Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 4AA

1. Duration of the relationship: the relationship’s length is assessed, including whether it is at least 2 years unless exceptions apply.
2. Nature and extent of common residence: whether the parties lived together, the pattern of residence, and whether cohabitation was continuous or intermittent.
3. Whether a sexual relationship exists: whether there was a sexual relationship, noting that its presence or absence is not determinative.
4. Degree of financial dependence or interdependence: whether one party relied on the other financially, whether there were shared financial arrangements, and whether financial support was regular and structured.
5. Ownership, use and acquisition of property: whether assets were jointly acquired, held, used, and improved, and how property was treated during the relationship.
6. Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life: whether the parties planned and acted as though they shared a life together, including future planning, integration, and reliance.
7. The care and support of children: whether the relationship included parenting responsibilities and how care was practically shared.
8. Reputation and public aspects of the relationship: how the relationship was presented to family, friends, and the community.
9. Any other relevant matter: any additional factor that bears on whether the relationship was de facto in substance.

These factors are weighed as a whole. No single factor is determinative, and different cases can satisfy the test in different ways.

Property Settlement — The Four-Step Process

Step 1: Identification and Valuation
– Identify all assets, liabilities, superannuation interests, and financial resources.
– Value assets at a relevant time, often close to hearing, acknowledging that timing disputes can arise.

Step 2: Assessment of Contributions
– Financial contributions: initial assets, payments toward purchase and improvement, mortgage payments, and direct funding.
– Non-financial contributions: renovations management, labour, and facilitation of property improvement.
– Contributions to welfare of the family: homemaking and parenting contributions, including the practical reality of who carried daily responsibility.

Step 3: Adjustment for Future Needs
– Consider the s 75(2) style factors by analogy where applicable in the relevant jurisdiction: age, health, income earning capacity, care of children, and the practical ability to build future financial security.
– This step is context-sensitive and may carry different weight depending on the statutory scheme.

Step 4: Just and Equitable
– The final check: does the proposed division make sense in all the circumstances, or does it produce a result that tends to be out of balance with the contribution narrative and the realities of future security?

Parenting Matters — Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC

Primary considerations:
1. The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents.
2. The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, with protection from harm given greater weight.

Additional considerations include:
– The child’s views, depending on maturity.
– Each parent’s capacity to provide for the child’s needs.
– Practical difficulty and expense of spending time with and communicating with a parent.
– The history of caregiving and the likely impact of changes on the child.

Chapter A3: Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Promissory or Proprietary Estoppel

Where statutory avenues are limited or uncertain, a party may consider whether:

• The other party made a clear and unequivocal promise or representation about property or future security.
• The relying party acted in detrimental reliance, such as leaving employment, contributing unpaid labour, or making decisions that reduced future earning capacity.
• It would be unconscionable for the promisor to resile from the promise.

If established, equity may prevent the promisor from departing from the representation, though outcomes vary and are sensitive to proof and context.

Unjust Enrichment and Constructive Trust

A party may consider whether:

• The other party received a benefit at their expense, such as unpaid labour enhancing a property’s value or direct payments without fair return.
• Retaining the benefit without recognition would be against conscience.

Courts may, depending on jurisdiction and proof, order restitution or recognise a beneficial interest through a constructive trust, though the risk profile tends to be case-specific and evidence-dependent.

Procedural Fairness

In disputes involving court processes, parties should consider whether:

• They were given a fair opportunity to present evidence and respond.
• The process was affected by apprehended bias or procedural irregularity.

This does not usually replace the merits, but can matter in judicial review contexts and sometimes intersects with costs and case management decisions.

Chapter A4: Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

• De facto threshold commonly involves a 2-year duration benchmark in some contexts, subject to statutory exceptions.
• Time limits may apply to commencing property adjustment proceedings depending on the governing legislation and jurisdiction.
• Offers of compromise have strict timing windows; for example, rules-based offers must usually be made and kept open in a way consistent with the procedural rules to have strong costs consequences.

Exceptional Channels

• Less than 2 years of cohabitation may still qualify for relief where there is a child of the relationship or substantial contributions such that failure to make orders would result in serious injustice, depending on the governing statute.
• Limitation issues may be overcome in limited circumstances where the statute permits extension and where explanation and evidence justify it, though the risk of refusal may be relatively high where delay is substantial and prejudice is shown.
• In costs, unusual conduct, improper motive, or litigation behaviour that imposes an undue burden may support indemnity-style costs, but the threshold tends to be demanding.

Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because you do not meet the standard time or conditions. Carefully compare your circumstances against statutory exceptions and procedural rules, as exceptions are often the pathway that keeps a claim viable.

Chapter A5: Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

This authority is useful in submissions where the court must decide:

• How to treat post-separation payments and rent-free occupation in a discretionary property adjustment.
• How to evaluate diminished earning capacity and reliance-related opportunity costs within a “just and equitable” statutory scheme.
• Whether appellate interference is warranted in discretionary property outcomes.

Citation Method

As Positive Support:
– Where a party argues that post-separation support should be acknowledged without becoming an automatic offset, this authority supports a contextual, discretionary approach.
– Where a party resists an appeal that is effectively a re-argument of weight, this authority reinforces House v The King and Norbis v Norbis principles.

As a Distinguishing Reference:
– If an opposing party cites this case to downplay notional rent, distinguish on facts where rent-free occupation was plainly unilateral, unrelated to child stability, or where the payer incurred significant additional housing costs without shared benefit.
– If an opposing party cites it to allow “needs and means” factors, distinguish where the governing statute lacks an “other relevant matters” provision, or where the claimed future disadvantage is not causally connected to relationship contributions.

Anonymisation Rule:
– Use procedural titles such as Appellant and Respondent, or Plaintiff and Defendant, rather than real names.

Conclusion

This case demonstrates that property division after a de facto relationship is not a refund system for every payment made after separation. Courts focus on contributions, context, and a just and equitable outcome within a discretionary range, and appeals rarely succeed unless clear legal error is shown.

Golden Sentence: Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Supreme Court of South Australia (H v G [2005] SASC 344), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.