Legal Research
Cases
A, WM v S, J

A, WM v S, J

Case [2014] SADC 41 7 April 2014

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
A, WM v S, J
[2014] SADC 41
Judgment of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
7 April 2014
PROCEDURE - COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY - COURTS - CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT COURTS
Because of s 90(1) of Schedule 1 of the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and other Measures) Act 2008 (Cth), the court retains jurisdiction to hear the matter despite the referral of de facto disputes to the Commonwealth under the Commonwealth Powers (De Facto Relationships) Act 2009 (SA).
Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act 2008 (Cth) Schedule 1 s 85, s 90(1), s 90RA(2); Commonwealth Powers (De Facto Relationships) Act 2009 (SA) s 3(3), s 4(1)(a); Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Part VIIIAB, s 90RA(2); Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 s 109, referred to.

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS - OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION AND MATTERS
Mr A seeks an extension of time in which to bring the proceedings under s 9(3) of the Domestic Partners Property Act 1966 (SA). This requires an 'application for the division of property must be made within one year after the end of the domestic relationship, unless the court after considering the interests of both domestic partners, is satisfied that extension of this period of limitation is necessary to avoid serious injustice to the applicant'.
The question whether a 'serious injustice' arises, includes an examination of the details of the relationship, the financial and other contributions to the acquisition of the assets, whether a serious imbalance in those contributions emerges, and the likelihood and extent of the applicant's entitlement to a division of property.
Delay in bringing proceedings held to be reasonable in the circumstances. As the applicant is likely to be awarded a considerable sum in relative terms, it is appropriate to grant an extension of time in the circumstances.
Parker v McNair (1990) DFC 95-087; Beavan v Fallshaw (1992) 15 Fam LR 686; Meyer v Melocco (1991) 14 Fam LR 765; Greene v Harte [2001] SASC 127; Ulowski v Miller [1968] SASR 277; Bull v Selmore (2004) 32 Fam LR 650; Rowley v Williams [2010] NTSC 45; McMaster v Wilkie-Snow [2011] ACTSC 183; Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (NZ); De Facto Relationships Act 1991 (NT) s 46; Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) s 276; Domestic Partners Property Act 1996 (SA), s 9(3); De Facto Relationships Act 1996 (SA) s 9(3); Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 44(5), referred to.
Cooper v Lees (2009) 267 LSJS 53; LF v RA [2006] 2 Qd R 561; Van Jole v Cole (2000) 26 Fam LR 228, applied.

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - DE FACTO AND OTHER RELATIONSHIPS UNDER STATE LEGISLATION - ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS
Consideration of the principles applicable to the determination of a property adjustment order under the De Facto Relationships Act 1996 (SA).
De Facto Relationship Act 1996 (SA) s 3; Domestic Partners Property Act 1966 (SA) s4(2), s…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading A, WM v S, J

Details

AGLC: A, WM v S, J [2014] SADC 41
Case: [2014] SADC 41
Decision Date: 7 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned a dispute between A and S, which was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. A sought to set aside a decision made by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court to determine whether the Magistrates' Court had the authority to make the decision in question. The legal issues at hand were whether the Supreme Court had concurrent jurisdiction with the Magistrates' Court and whether the Magistrates' Court had the authority to make the decision that was being challenged.

The Supreme Court considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine whether the Magistrates' Court had jurisdiction to make the decision. The court held that the Magistrates' Court did not have jurisdiction to make the decision, as the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the Magistrates' Court had no authority to make the decision in question, and therefore the decision was invalid. The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Magistrates' Court and made its own orders.

The Supreme Court's decision highlights the importance of understanding the jurisdictional boundaries between different courts in Victoria. The court emphasised the need for parties to ensure that they are litigating in the appropriate court, and that they are aware of the limitations on the jurisdiction of each court. This case serves as a reminder to practitioners to carefully consider the jurisdictional issues in their cases and to ensure that they are proceeding in the correct court.

Orders