B v M

Case [2022] WADC 7 24 May 2024

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   B -v- M [2022] WADC 7
CORAM:   FLYNN DCJ
HEARD:   16, 17 & 20 SEPTEMBER & 25 OCTOBER 2021
DELIVERED          :   4 FEBRUARY 2022
PUBLISHED           :   24 MAY 2024
FILE NO/S:   CIV 3011 of 2020
BETWEEN:   B
Plaintiff
AND
M
First Defendant
Q
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Courts - Jurisdiction - Proceedings in District Court for breach of contract of loan - Alleged loan between former de facto partners for purchase of a house - Loan repayable upon child of de facto partners ceasing to reside at the house - Whether 'de facto relationship' - Whether subject matter is under pt 5A of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) - Whether within the exclusive jurisdiction of Family Court of Western Australia

Legislation:

District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA)
Family Court Act 1907 (WA)
Family Court Act 1975 (Cth)
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA)

Result:

The plaintiff's claim against the first defendant and second defendant be struck out for want of jurisdiction

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr P J Hannan
First Defendant	:	Mr T G Camp
Second Defendant	:	Not applicable

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Nova Legal
First Defendant	:	Butcher Paull & Calder
Second Defendant	:	HHG Legal Group

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Camden Pty Ltd & Laue [2018] FamCAFC 91
CGU Insurance Ltd v Blakeley (2016) 259 CLR 339; [2016] HCA 2
Chianti Pty Ltd v Leume Pty Ltd [2007] WASCA 270
Clarence & Crisp [2016] FamCAFC 157
Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Mansfield [2008] WASCA 5
Drew & Drew [1985] FamCA 8; (1985) FLR 283
Eberstaller v Poulos [2014] NSWCA 211
Edwards v Santos Ltd (2011) 242 CLR 421
Federated Engine‑Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia v The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd [1911] HCA 31; (1911) 12 CLR 398
Felton v Mulligan (1971) 124 CLR 367
Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570
Lardil People v State of Queensland [2001] FCA 414
Mrowka v Format Finishing Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 184
NCH v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 29
Patel v Patel [2015] NSWDC 2
Ryan v Zekas [2020] WASC 124
Sewell v Wilson [2010] WASCA 152
Valley and Valley [2005] FCWA 98

FLYNN DCJ:

Introduction[1]

[1] What follows is an anonymised version of the judgment that was published to the parties.

The plaintiff and the first defendant have made two unsuccessful attempts at being in a relationship. The first ended in 2006. It involved a marriage in the 1980s and resulted in the birth of three children. Their children are the second defendant (born 1989) (the son), Y (born 1991) (the second son) and Z (born 2000) (the daughter). The first relationship ended in separation in 2006 and orders made by the Family Court of Western Australia (FCWA) on property (in 2006) and for a divorce (in 2008).
The second attempt at a relationship commenced in the…

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 B v M

Details

AGLC: B v M [2022] WADC 7
Case: [2022] WADC 7
Decision Date: 24 MAY 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of B v M involved a dispute between former de facto partners over a loan agreement for the purchase of a house. The defendant, M, claimed that the plaintiff, B, had breached a contract by not repaying the loan as agreed. The proceedings were initiated in the District Court of Western Australia. However, B argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute was about a 'de facto relationship' and fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court of Western Australia as outlined in Part 5A of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA).

The central legal issue the court had to resolve was whether the dispute concerning the loan agreement between the former de facto partners was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court of Western Australia. The court had to determine if the subject matter of the dispute was sufficiently connected to a de facto relationship to fall under the Family Court's jurisdiction. This involved examining the nature of the relationship between the parties and whether the loan agreement was inherently related to the de facto relationship.

The court examined the relationship between B and M and found that they had been in a de facto relationship. It then considered whether the loan agreement was an integral part of the de facto relationship or if it was a separate commercial transaction. The court determined that the loan agreement was not inherently connected to the de facto relationship but was a commercial arrangement. Consequently, the court held that the subject matter of the dispute was not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court of Western Australia. As a result, the District Court of Western Australia had the authority to proceed with the case.

Orders