Velda Mave Frame v Paul Bryan Frame

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Mugugia, AJ
• Judgment Date: 01 May 2023
• Neutral Citation: N10221
• Citation: N10221, 2023-05-01
• Counsel: Karen Lafanama, for the Petitioner,Soa Gor, for the Respondent
• Docket Number: MC NO. 07 OF 2020
• Hearing Date: 30 March 2023,01 May 2023
• Court: National Court

N10221

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

MC NO. 07 OF 2020

Matrimonial Causes Act, Chapter No. 282

Between:

Velda Mave Frame

Petitioner

v.

Paul Bryan Frame

Respondent

Goroka: Mugugia, AJ

2023: 30^th March, 1^st May

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES — Petition for dissolution of marriage — Ground of separation — No challenge to the ground — Order for decree nisi for dissolution of marriage granted

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES — Ancillary relief sought — Apportionment and award of 50% of all the Respondent's properties and businesses — Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the ancillary relief sought — Based on fairness and equity, the Petitioner is awarded 10% of the Respondent's shareholdings.

Case Cited:

ToRobert v. ToRobert (2012) SC1198

Counsel:

Karen Lafanama, for the Petitioner

Soa Gor, for the Respondent

Office of Public Solicitors: Lawyers for the Petitioner

Fiocco Nutley Lawyers: Lawyers for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

1^st May, 2023

1. Mugugia, AJ: The Petitioner, a Papua New Guinean national and the Respondent, an Australian, got married in accordance with the Papua New Guinea Marriage Act on 30^th December 1990 in Goroka, Eastern Highlands Province. They have two children of the marriage, who are now adults. By Petition filed on 18^th May 2020 in the National Court in Goroka, the Petitioner sought dissolution of marriage based on the ground of separation. The Petitioner sought ancillary relief for an apportionment and award of 50% of all of the Respondent's properties and businesses. An Answer to the Petition was filed by the Respondent.

2. The hearing of the Petition was conducted on 30^th March 2023. I reserved my decision to a date to be advised. I now deliver the judgment of the Court.

EVIDENCE

3. The hearing of the Petition was by way of affidavits which were tendered in Court by consent, and marked as exhibits. The parties' affidavits were as follows:

For the Petitioner

• Affidavit of Velda Mave Frame filed on 18^th May 2020 — Exhibit “P1”.

• Affidavit of Velda Mave Frame filed on 10^th November 2021 — Exhibit “P2”.

• Further Affidavit of Velda Mave Frame filed on 13^th May 2022 — Exhibit “P3”.

• Affidavit of Discovery of Velda Mave Frame filed on 16^th May 2022 — Exhibit “P4”.

For the Respondent

• Affidavit of Paul Bryan Frame filed on 10^th July 2020 — Exhibit “R1”.

• Affidavit of Discovery of Paul Bryan Frame filed on 6^th April 2022 — Exhibit “R2”.

• Affidavit of Paul Bryan Frame filed on 1^st February 2023 — Exhibit “R3”.

GROUND FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

4. Part V of the Matrimonial Causes Act (Act) provides for “Matrimonial Relief”. Section 17(a) to (n) set out the grounds for dissolution of marriage. The ground relied on by the Petitioner is separation. The ground of separation is Section 17(m) which reads:

“17. GROUNDS FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

Subject to this Division, a petition under this Act by a party to a marriage for a decree of dissolution of the marriage may be based on one or more of the following grounds:–

(a)…

…

(m) that the parties to the marriage have been separated and afterwards have lived separately and apart for a continuous period of not less than five years immediately preceding the date of the petition, and there is no reasonable likelihood of cohabitation being resumed.”

5. Sufficient evidence was placed before the Court to show the existence of the ground relied on by the Petitioner for dissolution of marriage. The Respondent voluntarily walked out of the marriage.

6. The Respondent agrees that there was separation. In his evidence, he confirmed that he had separated from the Petitioner for almost twenty years, and have no issue with her request for the dissolution of marriage. An order for dissolution of marriage should be granted.

7. The evidence in the proceedings show that there is no possibility of reconciliation.

8. I find that the ground of separation has been established. A Decree Nisi for the dissolution of marriage of the parties shall be granted.

ANCILLARY RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER

9. The Plaintiff claims apportionment and award of 50% of all the Respondent's properties and businesses. The issue to determine here is whether or not the Petitioner is entitled to 50% of all the Respondent's businesses and properties.

PARTIES' POSITIONS ON THE ANCILLARY RELIEF SOUGHT

Petitioner's Case As Presented

10. In the Petitioner's Admission of Facts filed on 1^st July 2022, she admitted that there was no financial or capital contributions from her to the various companies and businesses operated by the Respondent during the period of cohabitation and thereafter.

11. The Petitioner also admitted that during cohabitation and thereafter, she did not make any financial or capital contributions to the Respondent to set up and operate the Respondent's companies namely Frameworks Architects Limited, Kiloparoka Estate Limited and Frameworks Limited.

12. The Petitioner further admitted in her Admission of Facts that during cohabitation and thereafter, she did not make any financial or capital contributions to the Respondent to set up or operate and acquire shares in the Respondent's four companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). The companies are Newcrest Mining Limited (NCM AX), Oil Search Limited (OSH AX) now Santos Limited, Kingsgate Consolidated Limited (KCL AX), and Crater Gold Limited (CGN AX).

13. The Petitioner says that she may not have contributed financially...