A trial judge exercising the s 20 PR Act discretion has broad latitude in choosing methodology, including valuing parties' assets at different dates where this serves the evaluative purpose. An occupation fee claim by a co-owner excluded from jointly owned property may be refused where the occupying party has expended substantial sums on expenses and improvements that maintained or enhanced the property's value. There is no requirement for mathematical equivalence between a s 20 order and the parties' respective financial contributions.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.