Alkema & Simic - [2025] FedCFamC1F 428

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Alkema & Simic [2025] FedCFamC1F 428

File number MLC 2559 of 2025

Judgment of WILSON J

Date of judgment 16 June 2025

Catchwords
FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – six week adjournment application made by the respondent – respondent failed to appear at previous mention – respondent failing to appear as notified in emails sent from my chambers – respondent failed to comply with orders for filing evidence – no valid reason why an adjournment should be granted – adjournment application dismissed – trial to proceed undefended.

FAMILY LAW – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP –whether a de facto relationship existed between the parties – applicant contending a de facto relationship of 26 years’ duration existed – respondent contending that no de facto relationship existed – de facto relationship found to have existed under s 4AA of the Family Law Act.

Legislation
Family Law Act 1975 ss 4AA, 90SM, 102NA

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 s 149

Cases cited
Daly & Vella [2023] FedCFamC1A 70

Fairbairn v Radecki (2022) 275 CLR 400

Sinclair & Whittaker [2013] FamCAFC 129

Division Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs 34

Date of hearing 12 and 16 June 2025

Place Melbourne

Counsel for the applicant Mr D. McLeod

Solicitor for the applicant Moxie Legal

Counsel for the respondent Litigant in-person
ORDERS

MLC 2559 of 2025

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN
MS ALKEMA

Applicant

AND
MR SIMIC

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY

WILSON J

DATE OF ORDER

16 JUNE 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT the respondent’s application for leave to appear and to participate in his defence to this proceeding is refused.
I DECLARE THAT a de facto relationship existed between the parties between 1998 to 2024.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Alkema & Simic has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WILSON J
THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION

On 12 March 2025 when the respondent was legally represented by counsel orders were made by a judicial registrar of Division 2 of this court prior to the case being transferred to Division 1 of this court ahead of a compliance and readiness hearing scheduled for 8 April 2025. Nothing…

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 Alkema & Simic

Details

AGLC: Alkema & Simic [2025] FedCFamC1F 428
Case: [2025] FedCFamC1F 428
Decision Date: 16 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the case of Ms Alkema versus Mr Simic was heard by Wilson J. The central issue in the case was the existence of a de facto relationship between the parties, which the applicant, Ms Alkema, claimed had lasted for 26 years. The respondent, Mr Simic, contested this claim. The court also had to address the respondent's application for leave to appear and to participate in his defence, which was made under the backdrop of the respondent's failure to appear at a previous mention and his non-compliance with orders for filing evidence.

The court found that the respondent's application for an adjournment was not valid because he had failed to appear at a previous mention and had not complied with orders for filing evidence. There was no valid reason presented as to why an adjournment should be granted. The respondent's failure to appear as notified in emails sent from the court's chambers further undermined his application. As a result, the adjournment application was dismissed, and the trial proceeded undefended. Under section 4AA of the Family Law Act, the court found that a de facto relationship had indeed existed between the parties from 1998 to 2024.

Wilson J ruled that the respondent's application for leave to appear and participate in his defence was refused. The judge also declared that a de facto relationship existed between the parties from 1998 to 2024. The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records, and there is a possibility of minor typographical or grammatical errors being rectified, or a variation to the order being recorded, pursuant to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021.

Orders

Orders of the court

MLC 2559 of 2025

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN

MS ALKEMA

Applicant

AND

MR SIMIC

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY

WILSON J

DATE OF ORDER

16 JUNE 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT the respondent’s application for leave to appear and to participate in his defence to this proceeding is refused.

I DECLARE THAT a de facto relationship existed between the parties between 1998 to 2024.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number	MLC 2559 of 2025
Judgment of	WILSON J
Date of judgment	16 June 2025
Catchwords	FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – six week adjournment application made by the respondent – respondent failed to appear at previous mention – respondent failing to appear as notified in emails sent from my chambers – respondent failed to comply with orders for filing evidence – no valid reason why an adjournment should be granted – adjournment application dismissed – trial to proceed undefended. FAMILY LAW – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP –whether a de facto relationship existed between the parties – applicant contending a de facto relationship of 26 years’ duration existed – respondent contending that no de facto relationship existed – de facto relationship found to have existed under s 4AA of the Family Law Act.
Legislation	Family Law Act 1975 ss 4AA, 90SM, 102NA Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 s 149
Cases cited	Daly & Vella [2023] FedCFamC1A 70 Fairbairn v Radecki (2022) 275 CLR 400 Sinclair & Whittaker [2013] FamCAFC 129
Division	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs	34
Date of hearing	12 and 16 June 2025
Place	Melbourne
Counsel for the applicant	Mr D. McLeod
Solicitor for the applicant	Moxie Legal
Counsel for the respondent	Litigant in-person

MLC 2559 of 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN	MS ALKEMA Applicant
AND	MR SIMIC Respondent

ORDER MADE BY	WILSON J
DATE OF ORDER	16 JUNE 2025