Wendy Bulage v Cassy Ben [1990] PNGLR 473

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Brunton J
• Judgment Date: 20 November 1990
• Court: National Court
• Citation: [1990] PNGLR 473
• Year: 1990
• Judgement Number: N946

Full Title: Wendy Bulage v Cassy Ben [1990] PNGLR 473

National Court: Brunton J

Judgment Delivered: 20 November 1990

N946

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

BULAGE

V

BEN

Kundiawa

Brunton J

20 November 1990

FAMILY LAW — De facto relationships — Expenditure incurred during cohabitation — Whether recoverable by action.

CONTRACT — Matters not giving rise to — No intention to create contractual relationships — De facto relationship — Whether expenditure during cohabitation recoverable.

There is no cause of action under which a de facto husband or wife may recover the everyday expenditure incurred during the course of the relationship because they are not matters to which the courts attribute a contractual relationship.

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571, followed.

Comments on legal relationships in respect of property.

Cases Cited

The following cases are cited in the judgment:

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571.

Eves v Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1338; [1975] 3 All ER 768.

Synge v Synge [1894] 1 QB 466.

Appeal

This was appeal from an order made by a District Court magistrate that a de facto wife pay the sum of K1,480 to the de facto husband for the amount of money spent on the de facto wife during cohabitation.

Counsel:

T Bongere, for the appellant.

20 November 1990

BRUNTON J.: The complainant respondent sued his ex de facto wife the defendant/appellant for the moneys he claimed he had spent on her during the time they lived together.

The complaint in the District Court alleged:

"That you owed the Complainant the sum of Three Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty-Six kina (K3,466.00), the amount of money spent on you while you were living with the Complainant as his wife.

The above amount was spent on you by purchasing clothes, food etc, and also given some to your wantoks and so on.

You then divorced the Complainant and living with another man.

Therefore the Complainant seeks Court Order to claim the above amount in full plus cost."

The evidence before the District Court disclosed that the appellant had been married in a church, and her husband had deserted her. In 1986, the respondent, a community school teacher, took his furlough leave and went to stay in the village of the appellant. They developed a relationship and lived together between 14 June 1986 and 10 April 1989. The appellant then went back to her previous husband following a court case. The respondent says she left him...