The appellants challenged a trial judgment arising from the breakdown of a 15-year unmarried cohabitation on a farm.
They accepted entitlement to restitution for unjust enrichment and to support, but argued the awards were excessive and that the security charge should be narrowed.
The court held the trial judge was entitled to deference in assessing the responding party's needs, the moving party's true income-generating capacity, and the appropriate quantum of support.
Finding no basis to interfere with the unjust enrichment award or the charging order, the appeal was dismissed with costs.
