APPLEFORD & MERIDEN (No.2)

[2019] FCCA 234

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

APPLEFORD & MERIDEN (No.2) [2019] FCCA 234

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – De facto property proceedings – application for extension of time – appeal following final adjudication granting leave to proceed and the making of final orders – orders envisaged payment of fixed sum by respondent to applicant – respondent has appealed on the basis trial judge’s discretion miscarried in respect of both extension and final orders – application for stay pending disposal of appeal – matters to be considered – balance of hardship – potential for appeal to be rendered nugatory if stay not granted.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.44(6), 117B(1)

Cases cited:

Appleford & Meriden [2018] FCCA 3333
Jackson & Balen [2009] FamCAFC 131
Atuk & Atuk & Anor (No2) [2016] FamCA 491

Applicant: MR APPLEFORD

Respondent: MS MERIDEN

File Number: ADC 25 of 2016

Judgment of: Judge Brown

Hearing date: 1 February 2019

Date of Last Submission: 1 February 2019

Delivered at: Adelaide

Delivered on: 6 February 2019

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Jordan

Solicitors for the Applicant: Jordan & Fowler

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Tredrea

Solicitors for the Respondent: Angela Ferdinandy

ORDERS

1. That Order 3 made on 20 November 2018 be stayed, pending the determination of the appeal in Appeal file number SOA 95 of 2018.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Appleford & Meriden (No.2) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ADELAIDE

ADC 25 of 2016

MR APPLEFORD

Applicant

And

MS MERIDEN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. On 13 January 2016, over two years ago, Mr Appleford began proceedings, in this court, seeking orders to settle the division of de facto relationship property between him and Ms Meriden.  It is evident through the protracted proceedings which followed this application that Ms Meriden has stringently opposed Mr Appleford’s application.

2. I have not been previously involved in the proceedings, which has gone to judgment.  The trial judge was Judge Kelly, who is currently indisposed.  Ms Meriden has appealed and seeks a stay of Judge Kelly’s final orders pending the outcome of her appeal.

Background

1. Mr Appleford was born in 1945.  He receives an aged pension.  He is not in a strong financial position.  His original financial statement indicated accumulated assets worth around $5,000.00 and negligible superannuation. 

2. It is Mr Appleford’s case that he met Ms Meriden in August of 1995 and the two began to live together, as a couple, in a property owned by Ms Meriden at Property B, a few months later.  He asserts that they finally separated in October of 2013. 

3. Ms Meriden responded to the application on 25 May 2016.  It was her position that there had never been a de facto relationship between the parties.  Rather, she asserted that Mr Appleford had boarded at her home and made some modest contributions to shared living expenses at the Property B property. 

4. Ms Meriden was born in 1957.  She…