Abell and Vogel

The Family Court of Australia considered property settlement orders between Mr Abell (the applicant) and Ms Vogel (the respondent), who were parties to a de facto relationship. The parties sought the court's determination of their property settlement, with a dispute arising regarding the precise duration of their cohabitation. The court was asked to make orders concerning the distribution of funds held in a controlled monies account and the ownership of other property and superannuation.

The central legal issues before the court were to determine the duration of the de facto relationship, assess the contributions made by each party to the relationship and its property, and ultimately make just and equitable property settlement orders under sections 79 and 90SM of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also had to consider the impact of the parties' respective financial positions, earning capacities, and the care of the child of the relationship, who resided with the respondent in Singapore.

The court found that while the parties cohabited for a relatively short period, the actual duration was less significant than the disparity in contributions. The respondent was found to have made significantly greater contributions, particularly in relation to the acquisition of property and the care of the child. The court noted that the respondent's evidence was generally more reliable than the applicant's, especially concerning financial matters and the precise details of their cohabitation. Applying the principles of assessing contributions and making equitable adjustments, the court determined that an adjustment of 8 percent in favour of the respondent was appropriate.

Consequently, the court ordered that the applicant receive 12 percent of the parties' available property, and the respondent receive 88 percent. Specifically, the monies in the controlled monies account were to be divided 25 percent to the applicant and 75 percent to the respondent. It was declared that each party was the sole owner of all other property and superannuation in their possession, and each party was to be solely liable for any liabilities encumbering their respective entitlements.