Domestic Partners Property Claim Between an Adult Child and an Elderly Parent: When Does Long-Term Co-Residence Justify a Property Adjustment and a Costs Order?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Taddeo v Taddeo (No 2) [2010] SADC 84 (District Court of South Australia, Nicholson J), 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: District Court of South Australia (Civil jurisdiction)

Presiding Judge: His Honour Judge Nicholson

Cause of Action: Costs determination following a domestic partners property adjustment claim; alternative claim in equity for constructive trust

Judgment Date: 28 June 2010

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case

Keyword 2: Domestic Partners Property Act 1996 (SA)

Keyword 3: Constructive trust

Keyword 4: Costs discretion

Keyword 5: Calderbank letter

Keyword 6: Proportional success and partial costs

Background

The proceedings arose from a long, shared domestic life between two family members who had lived together in the same residential property for roughly two and a half decades. After the relationship broke down, the Plaintiff commenced civil proceedings seeking a substantial interest in the home. The Plaintiff advanced the case on two tracks: first, an equitable claim alleging the circumstances justified the Court declaring a constructive trust over the property; second, an alternative claim invoking the statutory regime for adjusting property interests between domestic partners under the Domestic Partners Property Act 1996 (SA).

The case later moved into a critical second stage: even after the Court made substantive orders about money and property adjustment, the parties remained in conflict about who should pay the legal costs of the litigation and whether any additional amount should be allowed in lieu of interest.

This case is unusual because the domestic arrangement was not the common paradigm of an intimate couple. The Defendant argued, as a matter of law and fact, that the statutory domestic partners regime could not apply to the relationship in question. The Court rejected that contention. The later costs judgment demonstrates how Australian courts manage the tension between the orthodox rule that costs follow the event and the reality that property adjustment disputes often involve mixed success, emotional drivers, and claims pitched far beyond what the evidence will support.

Core Disputes and Claims

The core dispute at the costs stage was not whether the Plaintiff received some relief, but how the Court should characterise success for the purpose of costs, and whether the usual approach should be displaced because the Plaintiff recovered far less than claimed.

Relief sought:

1. Plaintiff’s position on costs: an order that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings on a party and party basis.

2. Defendant’s position on costs: either no order as to costs, meaning each party bears their own costs, or alternatively a costs order in favour of the Defendant for some or all costs, on the footing that the Plaintiff’s claims were largely unsuccessful or exaggerated.

Ancillary dispute:

1. Interest: the Court also dealt with whether an additional amount should be allowed in lieu of interest for a particular period following the date of separation until judgment.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The litigation began in a place that often produces the hardest disputes: a shared home and a shared life, where daily routines over many years blur the line between familial obligation, practical dependency, and financial contribution.

For about 24 years, the Plaintiff and Defendant lived together in the same residential property. Over time, the house became more than a roof. It became the centre of their relationship, their security, and their sense of entitlement. When the relationship fractured and co-residence became impossible, the question was no longer simply who would live where. The question became: what is the Plaintiff’s financial stake, if any, in the property?

The Plaintiff’s case was built around a moral narrative many ordinary readers will recognise: “I lived here for decades; I contributed; I sacrificed; therefore I should be treated as having an ownership share.” The Defendant’s case was built around an equally recognisable narrative: “This is my property; co-residence did not create ownership; family life is not the same as a property partnership.”

Those competing life stories hardened into legal claims. The Plaintiff pursued the strongest remedy first: a constructive trust, which, if established, can recognise a beneficial interest in property that is not reflected on the legal title. When that proved difficult on the evidence, the Plaintiff turned to an alternative statutory path: a court-ordered adjustment of property interests under domestic partners legislation.

The decisive moment was not a single argument, but the point at which both parties entrenched themselves in absolute positions. The Plaintiff maintained a demand equivalent to half the house. The Defendant maintained the position that the Plaintiff should receive nothing. As the Court later observed, the dispute became dominated by emotion and bitterness, and that emotional temperature shaped the litigation strategy, including the absence of genuine compromise.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Plaintiff’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Co-residence history: evidence that the Plaintiff and Defendant lived together in the Lomman Avenue property for approximately 24 years, establishing the factual foundation for any argument that the relationship had a domestic character and involved shared life arrangements.

2. Constructive trust narrative: evidence directed to showing that, notwithstanding legal title, the parties’ dealings, intentions, and contributions created an equitable interest in favour of the Plaintiff. In practical terms, this type of claim usually relies on proof of contributions, promises, common intention, or reliance-based detriment.

3. Statutory alternative case: pleadings amended prior to trial to include reliance on ss 9 and 10 of the Domestic Partners Property Act 1996 (SA), seeking an adjustment order affecting joint property interests.

4. Calderbank letter: evidence that the Plaintiff sent a Calderbank letter, which is typically used to argue that a costs order should be influenced because the recipient unreasonably rejected an offer. In this case, the letter did not suggest compromise and therefore did not operate as an orthodox costs lever.

Defendant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Legal inapplicability argument: the Defendant contended that the Domestic Partners Property Act could not, as a matter of law, apply to an elderly mother residing with a middle-aged daughter. This was a threshold legal position designed to defeat the statutory pathway entirely.

2. Factual inapplicability argument: the Defendant contended that even if the Act could apply in theory, it did not apply on the facts of this relationship, implying the absence of the statutory indicia of a domestic partnership.

3. Jurisdictional timing argument: the Defendant contended that, if the Act applied, the relationship ended at a date prior to the earliest date attracting the jurisdiction of the Act, attempting to remove the dispute from the statutory time reach.

4. Contribution denial: the Defendant maintained that the Plaintiff did not make significant contributions towards acquisition of the residential property and should not receive a large share or any share.

Core Dispute Points

1. Whether the Plaintiff could establish an equitable interest through constructive trust.

2. Whether the Domestic Partners Property Act 1996 (SA) applied to the relationship between the parties as a matter of law and fact.

3. If the Act applied, what adjustment, if any, was just, and whether a lump sum order was appropriate.

4. Costs: whether the usual rule that costs follow the event should apply; whether the Plaintiff’s limited recovery and failure on significant issues justified reducing or reversing a costs order.

5. Whether an additional amount should be allowed in lieu of interest for the period following separation.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

In property disputes of this kind, affidavits often do more than state facts. They tell competing stories. Each party selects details that make the relationship look, legally, like what they need it to be.

The Plaintiff’s affidavit strategy would typically emphasise continuity, mutual dependence, and contribution. When a party wants to convert long co-residence into a claim for property adjustment, the affidavit usually highlights household labour, unpaid caregiving, financial interweaving, and reliance. In everyday terms, it is the difference between saying “I stayed here” and saying “I lived a shared domestic life that shaped both of our financial positions.”

The Defendant’s affidavit strategy would typically emphasise separation of finances, lack of shared intention, and the idea that family living arrangements do not equate to a property partnership. In everyday terms, it is the difference between saying “We lived together” and saying “We did not merge our property lives.”

The judicial significance of affidavits in such litigation is that they set the boundaries of the factual contest before cross-examination. When the Court gives procedural directions about affidavits, it is not administrative housekeeping. It is an evidentiary filtration mechanism: the Court is directing parties to put their best, admissible case forward in a structured form that can be tested.

Strategic intent behind procedural directions regarding affidavits:

1. To force each party to articulate the specific contributions and alleged representations with clarity, reducing the risk of vague, emotionally charged evidence.

2. To narrow issues, identifying which facts are admitted, which are disputed, and what documentary corroboration exists.

3. To prepare the ground for cross-examination, where credibility and consistency become central.

In a case with intense personal conflict, affidavits can also become a vehicle for grievance. Courts routinely discourage affidavit material that is argumentative, irrelevant, or abusive because it inflates costs and distracts from the statutory and equitable questions that must be determined.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Prior to the final hearing, the Court managed the proceeding through procedural arrangements typical of civil litigation involving mixed equitable and statutory claims:

1. Directions for pleadings: the Plaintiff initially pleaded equity only and later amended to add a statutory claim under the Domestic Partners Property Act 1996 (SA) in the alternative.

2. Directions for evidence: orders for filing and serving affidavits and other evidence in admissible form.

3. Interlocutory management: the matter was subject to interlocutory costs orders made by a Master, which the trial judge later declined to disturb.

4. Trial listing: the substantive hearing occurred before the costs judgment, with the Court later receiving submissions specifically on costs and interest.

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

The hearing was a collision between two absolute positions. Each party approached the litigation as though only total victory was acceptable: either half the house or nothing. That approach shaped both the evidentiary contest and the later costs outcome.

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

In cross-examination, the Court’s task in a case like this is to translate domestic life into legal categories. The decisive friction points typically include:

1. Specificity of contributions: whether the Plaintiff could identify concrete financial contributions to acquisition or mortgage payments, rather than general statements of help or presence.

2. Reliability of recollection: where long periods are involved, the Court assesses whether recollections are anchored in documents or are reconstructed through grievance.

3. Internal consistency: whether the Plaintiff’s narrative of “shared ownership life” is consistent with the parties’ actual financial arrangements, such as bank accounts, title documents, and payment records.

4. Alternative explanations: whether the Defendant’s account of property ownership and responsibility coherently explains the documents and the parties’ conduct over time.

Where cross-examination exposes that a large claim rests on thin proof, the Court does not need to reject every element of a party’s story. It is enough that the evidentiary chain does not support the legal conclusion sought.

Core Evidence Confrontation

The most decisive evidence in a property claim usually comes from objective records:

1. Title and acquisition documents: demonstrating who acquired the property and in what capacity.

2. Financial records: bank statements, mortgage records, receipts and invoices, showing who paid what and when.

3. Contemporaneous communications: letters, emails, and other communications showing whether there was any expressed intention to share ownership or whether contributions were made on a different basis.

In this case, the Court later stated, in substance, that the Plaintiff failed to prove significant contribution to acquisition sufficient to support the equitable outcome claimed, and failed to establish the constructive trust pathway. However, the Court accepted that the statutory domestic partners pathway applied and supported a limited adjustment.

Judicial Reasoning

The later costs judgment provides a clear window into how the Court evaluated success and the fairness of a costs order. The Court proceeded from orthodox civil principles: costs are discretionary, and the general rule is that costs follow the event, but that discretion is influenced by the nature of the litigation and the extent of success.

The Court explicitly rejected the idea that domestic partner property adjustment cases automatically default to each party bearing their own costs, while also acknowledging that the nature of the dispute makes the quantum of success and the conduct of the litigation highly relevant.

The plaintiff is the party who on the whole has succeeded. However, she failed with respect to significant issues between the parties and maintained a claim, without any indication of being prepared to compromise, that was out of all proportion to that with which she ultimately succeeded.

This statement is determinative because it captures the Court’s balancing exercise. The Court treated the Plaintiff as successful in a formal sense because a monetary order was obtained, but treated the Plaintiff as only partially successful in a practical sense because the major theories advanced failed and the quantum recovered was far below the claim.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court made further orders in addition to the substantive orders already made in the principal judgment.

1. Interest in lieu: the Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiff a lump sum of AUD $6,600 in lieu of interest for the period from 15 October 2007 to 11 May 2010.

2. Costs: the Defendant was ordered to pay 50 per cent of the Plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings, such costs to be agreed or, if not agreed, taxed on a party and party basis.

These orders reflect a two-part conclusion: the Plaintiff was not treated as wholly unsuccessful and was not left to bear all costs; however, the Plaintiff was not rewarded with full costs because the litigation stance and outcome did not justify it.

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

Special Analysis

This judgment is valuable because it shows how Australian courts respond to a mismatch between the scale of a claim and the scale of proof, especially in relationship-based property disputes.

Three features make it jurisprudentially instructive:

1. Statutory adaptability in non-traditional relationships
   The Defendant’s threshold submission was that domestic partners legislation could not apply to an elderly mother and adult daughter. The Court rejected that contention. This underscores that statutory tests turn on legally defined relationship characteristics rather than stereotypes about who can qualify.

2. The Court’s refusal to treat domestic partner property disputes as automatically costs-neutral
   The Court endorsed the view that there is no rule that each party bears their own costs simply because the litigation concerns adjusting property rights between domestic partners. The case therefore resists an assumption sometimes imported from family law costs practice into other jurisdictions.

3. Costs as a discipline against disproportionality
   The Court used costs to reflect the real-world justice of the litigation: the Plaintiff had to sue to receive anything, but the Plaintiff’s insistence on an extreme position and failure on significant issues justified a partial costs order only.

Judgment Points

1. Costs remain discretionary even where a party “wins”
   In civil proceedings, “winning” is not binary. The Court’s analysis demonstrates that success is evaluated against what was claimed, what was proved, and what was obtained.

2. Costs follow the event is a starting point, not an ending point
   The Court acknowledged the general rule but then moved to consider why the “usual” order would be unjust, given mixed success.

3. The nature of domestic partner property adjustment disputes matters
   The Court accepted that factors considered in analogous contexts, including matrimonial proceedings, partnership proceedings, and partition cases, can inform the costs discretion, without importing a rigid rule.

4. Offers and compromise behaviour are highly influential
   The Court noted the absence of formal offers and that the only known Calderbank letter made no suggestion of compromise. That fact deprived the Plaintiff of a conventional argument that the Defendant unreasonably refused a realistic settlement.

5. A party can fail on major theories yet still obtain relief
   The Plaintiff failed on constructive trust, and did not prove significant acquisition contribution, yet obtained a statutory adjustment lump sum. This mixed picture drove the 50 per cent costs outcome.

Legal Basis

The Court’s costs reasoning was grounded in statutory and rules-based discretion:

1. District Court Act 1991 (SA), s 42(1)
   Costs in civil proceedings are in the discretion of the Court, subject to other constraints.

2. District Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA), r 263(1)
   The general rule is that costs follow the event.

3. District Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA), r 263(2)(h)
   The Court considered whether an exception relating to monetary claims applied. Even if it did, it would not operate to deny costs because the award exceeded the relevant threshold in the rule.

4. District Court Act 1991 (SA), s 42(2)
   The Court examined whether a restriction applies where the claim could have been brought in the Magistrates Court and the recovery is below a fixed amount. The Court concluded that this was not such a case in substance, and in any event it did not fetter the general discretion on the facts.

5. Domestic Partners Property Act 1996 (SA), ss 9 and 10
   While the costs judgment focused on costs, the Court’s reference to the principal judgment makes clear that the statutory adjustment was made under the Act, after rejecting constructive trust relief.

Evidence Chain

Victory in a costs dispute is not won by emotion. It is won by aligning the litigation history to principles the Court recognises as relevant:

1. Establishing success as a matter of substance
   The Plaintiff’s chain was: a monetary award was obtained; it required litigation; therefore the Plaintiff was not a “loser” for costs purposes.

2. Establishing mixed success as a matter of proportionality
   The Defendant’s chain was: the Plaintiff failed on constructive trust; the Plaintiff failed to prove major acquisition contributions; the Plaintiff obtained far less than claimed; therefore a full costs order would be unjust.

3. Anchoring discretion in recognised considerations
   The Court adopted an evaluative list of relevant considerations, including the quantum of adjustment, analogies to other relationship or joint property proceedings, compromise behaviour, and conduct causing disproportionate costs.

4. Interest component as a separate fairness adjustment
   The Court allowed a lump sum in lieu of interest for a defined period, reflecting the time value of money as part of doing justice between the parties.

Judicial Original Quotation

The Court articulated the key discretionary framework by adopting and adapting reasoning from comparable authorities:

In my view a number of the considerations relied upon by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Kardos remain relevant to the discretion as to the proper costs order, if any, to be made where the litigation primarily concerns an adjustment of joint property of domestic partners.

This was determinative because it legitimised a structured, factor-based costs approach, rather than a reflex application of costs-follow-the-event.

The Court also made a decisive finding about characterising success:

I reject the submission that the plaintiff did not succeed. In my view, she did. She obtained an award in her favour of $40,000 and her only means of doing so was to prosecute her claim in these proceedings.

This statement matters because it establishes that the Plaintiff’s partial failures did not convert the Plaintiff into an unsuccessful party. It sets the anchor point for a reduced costs order rather than no costs.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The losing party on the costs question, in practical terms, was the party who argued for extreme outcomes in a context of mixed results.

1. Failure to align costs position with the Court’s success characterisation
   The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff did not succeed or succeeded only nominally. The Court held the Plaintiff did succeed, because meaningful monetary relief was obtained.

2. Failure to produce a settlement narrative that justified depriving the Plaintiff of costs
   Without evidence of a realistic offer, or conduct showing that the Plaintiff unreasonably refused compromise, the Defendant could not persuade the Court to make no costs order or to award costs to the Defendant.

3. Overreach on the proposition that domestic partner property adjustment disputes are costs-neutral
   The Court rejected any rigid approach that each party bears their own costs merely because of the nature of the relief.

4. Underestimating the Court’s intolerance for “all or nothing” positions
   The Court treated both parties as entrenched, but used the Plaintiff’s disproportional claim to reduce costs, rather than using the Defendant’s entrenchment to eliminate the Plaintiff’s costs entitlement entirely.

Reference to Comparable Authorities

1. M, DA v P, N (No 2) [2008] SADC 180
   Ratio summary: In domestic partner property adjustment litigation, there is no automatic principle that each party should bear their own costs. Costs remain discretionary and the usual civil approach is not displaced merely because the dispute concerns relationship-based property adjustment.

2. Kardos v Sarbutt (No 2) (2006) NSWCA 206
   Ratio summary: The Court of Appeal in New South Wales discussed considerations relevant to costs in relationship-based property disputes, including analogies to matrimonial proceedings and the appropriateness of costs being borne from joint property in some joint-interest contexts. The South Australian Court treated those considerations as potentially relevant but not determinative.

3. Dunstan v Rickwood (No 2) (2007) NSWCA 266
   Ratio summary: The Court of Appeal rejected any rigid rule derived from analogous legislation that would require costs neutrality. Costs discretion must be exercised with reference to success, conduct, and the justice of the case.

Key to Victory

The “winning” outcome, for the party who secured it, was built on five practical strengths:

1. Establishing that litigation was necessary to obtain any adjustment
   The Court accepted that the Plaintiff’s only means of securing an award was to prosecute the claim.

2. Presenting the recovery as meaningful, not nominal
   The award exceeded the threshold considered relevant to the rules discussion, supporting an entitlement to costs in principle.

3. Framing the case within orthodox civil principles
   By anchoring submissions in the District Court Act and Rules, the successful party stayed within the Court’s recognised decision structure.

4. Avoiding a costs argument that depended on a strict family law analogy
   The Court treated family law analogy as a consideration, not a controlling rule.

5. Accepting proportional fairness as the end point
   The ultimate order was a compromise crafted by the Court: 50 per cent costs. The successful party’s victory was not total, but it was secured because the Court recognised the partial justice of the claim.

Implications

1. Long co-residence does not automatically equal co-ownership
   Sharing a home for decades can create a powerful sense of entitlement, but courts require proof of legal elements: contributions, intentions, statutory criteria, and an evidentiary chain that supports the order sought.

2. An extreme claim can become a hidden financial risk
   Even where a party obtains some relief, a claim pitched far beyond the evidence can reduce the costs recovery. Litigation strategy has a financial consequence separate from the substantive outcome.

3. Domestic relationship disputes are still civil litigation
   Emotional conflict does not change the Court’s method. The Court will focus on admissible evidence, statutory tests, and proportional fairness.

4. Costs are a mirror of reasonableness
   Costs orders often reveal what the Court thought of the parties’ litigation behaviour. A refusal to compromise, or an insistence on absolute positions, can materially reduce recovery.

5. Winning is sometimes a measured, imperfect outcome
   A party can fail on major legal theories yet still succeed in obtaining a statutory adjustment. Practical justice is not always aligned with the grand narrative one party brings to Court.

Q&A Session

Q1: If I live with a parent for many years, can I claim half the house?
A: The Court’s approach suggests the answer tends to depend on whether you can prove the legal basis for an adjustment. Long co-residence is relevant background, but courts look for statutory criteria or equitable elements supported by evidence. A large claim without proof risks a reduced outcome and a reduced costs recovery.

Q2: Does losing a constructive trust claim mean the case is over?
A: Not necessarily. This case shows that a party can fail in equity yet still obtain relief under a statutory property adjustment regime if the relationship falls within that regime and the evidence supports an adjustment.

Q3: Why did the Court award only 50 per cent of costs, not all costs?
A: The Court treated the Plaintiff as successful because a significant monetary award was obtained, but considered the Plaintiff failed on significant issues and pursued a claim disproportionate to what was ultimately achieved. That mixed success made a reduced costs order the fairest outcome.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype

Domestic partners property adjustment dispute in a non-traditional domestic relationship; alternative equitable claim for constructive trust; subsequent costs determination following mixed success.

Judgment Nature Definition

Final costs judgment following substantive orders in the principal judgment; discretionary costs determination in civil proceedings.

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

Execution Instruction Applied

Although the statutory regime applied in this case was the Domestic Partners Property Act 1996 (SA), many Australian readers and practitioners benchmark domestic relationship property issues against the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) framework for de facto relationships and property adjustment logic. The following tests are provided as reference standards commonly used in Australian practice. They do not operate mechanically, and outcomes tend to be determined by the specific statutory scheme engaged and the evidence.

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

Core Test: Existence of De Facto Relationship, Section 4AA

1. Duration of the relationship: The relationship must ordinarily have existed for at least 2 years, unless an exception applies.

2. Nature and extent of common residence: The Court considers whether the parties lived together, and whether co-residence was continuous or intermittent.

3. Whether a sexual relationship exists: The Court considers whether a sexual relationship exists or existed, recognising that absence of sexual relations does not necessarily preclude a de facto finding if other factors support it.

4. Degree of financial dependence or interdependence: The Court examines whether one party depended on the other financially, or whether finances were interwoven through shared expenses or pooled resources.

5. Ownership, use and acquisition of property: The Court considers whether property was owned jointly or separately, how it was used, and whether acquisitions were made for shared purposes.

6. Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life: The Court examines whether the relationship was characterised by mutual commitment, planning, and shared future orientation, rather than a casual arrangement.

7. The care and support of children: The Court considers whether the parties cared for and supported children together.

8. Reputation and public aspects of the relationship: The Court considers how the relationship was presented to family, friends, and the community, including whether the parties were regarded as a couple.

9. Any other relevant matter: The Court may consider any additional facts that assist in determining whether the parties had a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis.

Property Settlement: The Four-Step Process

1. Identification and Valuation
   The Court identifies the existing property interests and values the net asset pool, being assets minus liabilities, at the relevant date.

2. Assessment of Contributions
   The Court assesses contributions across the relationship, including financial contributions at commencement and during the relationship, non-financial contributions such as labour improving property, and contributions to the welfare of the family such as homemaking and caregiving.

3. Adjustment for Future Needs: Section 75(2) Factors
   The Court considers future needs factors including age, health, income earning capacity, care of children, and the standard of living that is reasonable in the circumstances, noting that adjustments tend to depend on evidence of disparity and ongoing responsibility.

4. Just and Equitable
   The Court conducts a final evaluative check: whether the proposed orders are just and equitable in all the circumstances, recognising that an order can be legally available yet not just on the facts.

Parenting Matters: Section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975

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 where the considerations conflict.

Additional Considerations include:

1. The views of the child, assessed by maturity and understanding.

2. The capacity of each parent to provide for the child’s needs, including emotional and practical needs.

3. The practical difficulty and expense of the child spending time with and communicating with a parent.

4. Other matters the Court considers relevant to the child’s best interests in the particular case.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Promissory and Proprietary Estoppel

Key questions:

1. Did the other party make a clear and unequivocal promise or representation about property ownership or future entitlement?

2. Did you act in detrimental reliance on that promise, such as paying substantial sums, performing unpaid labour improving the property, or restructuring your life in reliance on the promise?

3. Would it be unconscionable for the other party to resile from the promise?

Practical consequence:

Even without a written contract, equity may prevent the other party from going back on their word, and the Court may grant relief tailored to avoid unconscionable outcomes. The relief tends to be shaped by proportionality and by the minimum necessary to avoid injustice.

Unjust Enrichment and Constructive Trust

Key questions:

1. Has the other party received a benefit at your expense, including money paid, labour contributed, or opportunities foregone?

2. Is it against conscience for the other party to retain that benefit without payment or recognition?

3. Is there a recognised juristic reason for retention, such as a gift, a lawful bargain, or a clear family arrangement?

Practical consequence:

A Court may order restitution or may declare a beneficial interest through a constructive trust if the elements justify that equitable response. Outcomes tend to depend on the strength of the evidentiary chain, particularly contemporaneous documents and reliable financial records.

Procedural Fairness

Where a statutory decision is involved, or where a tribunal or decision-maker must act fairly:

1. Was there a genuine opportunity to be heard?

2. Was there an apprehension of bias?

3. Were reasons logically connected to evidence and lawful power?

Practical consequence:

Procedural unfairness can support judicial review style relief. In property adjustment litigation, procedural fairness concepts often surface in how evidence is admitted, how directions are made, and whether a party is given a proper opportunity to present the case.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

1. De facto duration threshold: 2 years of relationship is a common benchmark in federal family law, subject to statutory exceptions.

2. Limitation periods: civil claims, including equitable claims, may be affected by limitation rules and equitable doctrines such as laches, depending on jurisdiction and claim type.

3. Jurisdictional thresholds: monetary and subject-matter thresholds determine whether proceedings belong in a Magistrates Court or a higher court, which can later influence costs arguments.

Exceptional Channels

Family law style exceptions to the 2-year benchmark tend to include:

1. A child of the relationship.

2. Registration of the relationship under a State or Territory law.

3. Substantial contributions such that failure to make an order would result in serious injustice.

In analogous statutory regimes, timing and jurisdiction exceptions can also arise. A party should not abandon a potential claim solely because a standard threshold is not met. The outcome tends to turn on exceptions, factual nuance, and evidence.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

This case is often useful in submissions about:

1. Costs discretion in property adjustment proceedings involving domestic partners legislation.

2. How courts treat mixed success where a party fails on significant issues but obtains some monetary relief.

3. The relevance of compromise conduct, offers, and proportionality to costs outcomes.

Citation Method

As Positive Support:

1. Where a party seeks a costs order despite partial success, the authority supports the proposition that obtaining meaningful relief can constitute success, but costs may be reduced where major issues failed.

As a Distinguishing Reference:

1. Where an opposing party seeks to deprive a successful party of costs by arguing a domestic property dispute should be costs-neutral, the authority supports distinguishing on the basis that there is no automatic costs-neutral rule and that discretion is guided by orthodox civil principles.

Anonymisation Rule

In practical discussion, avoid using personal names. Use Plaintiff and Defendant, or Applicant and Respondent as appropriate to the jurisdiction and procedural posture, while retaining the published case name in formal legal citation where required.

Conclusion

This case shows that a court can recognise a limited statutory property adjustment in a complex domestic arrangement while still using costs to correct disproportionality and discourage entrenched “all or nothing” litigation. The golden lesson is simple and powerful: evidence and proportionality do not just decide liability, they shape the financial consequences of how you litigate.

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 District Court of South Australia in Taddeo v Taddeo (No 2) [2010] SADC 84, 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.