B v T - [2007] QSC 55

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

B v T [2007] QSC 055

PARTIES:

B
(respondent/plaintiff)
v
T
(applicant/defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S 5118/03

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court of Queensland
Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 March 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 March 2007

JUDGE:

Lyons J

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – RELATIONSHIP – where the plaintiff pleads that the defendant and the plaintiff lived together in a de facto relationship in Queensland between 1997 and 1998 – where the de facto relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant ended in Victoria in 2001 - where there is an application for an adjustment of the parties’ property interests under Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) – where the parties resided in Queensland prior to the commencement of Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) - whether the plaintiff and the defendant were in a de facto relationship to which Part 19 applies

Acts Interpretation Act 1954, 14B
Property Law Act 1974, Part 19, s 57, s 257, s 282(1)

C v B [2006] Queensland Supreme Court 195 (applied)
Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners Association (1908) 6 CLR 309 (considered)
Kumagai Gumi Co Ltd v FCT (1999) 161 ALR 699 (applied)

COUNSEL:

T.D North SC and J.M Harper for the applicant.
T.P Sullivan for the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

K.L King & Associates for the applicant.
Simonidis Shoebridge Lawyers for the respondent.

LYONS J:

Application to strike out the plaintiff’s claim

On 11 June 2003 the plaintiff, the respondent in these proceedings, filed a claim for an order that pursuant to Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (“the Act”) that the defendant, the applicant in these proceedings, transfer all his right, title and interest in his property situated at Twigg Street, Indooroopilly, to the plaintiff or such other orders as may facilitate a just and equitable property distribution. The defendant filed a Notice of Intention to Defend and a Counterclaim on 27 August 2003. The matter then proceeded in accordance with Practice Direction 33 of 1999 and there was a Consent Order on 16 November 2004 in relation to the valuation of the property, the delivery of Lists of Documents and the Statement of Compliance with Practice Direction 33 of 1999. The defendant filed a Statement of Financial Circumstances in 2005 and both the plaintiff and the defendant filed Notices of Change of Solicitors during 2005 and 2006. On 26 October 2006 pursuant to a Case Flow review there was an order appointing single court experts to value real estate in Queensland and New South Wales as well as chattels and artwork. Pursuant to that order the parties were also required to file any affidavit material upon which they intended to rely as well as updated Statements of Financial Circumstances by 7 December 2006. The parties were also directed to file an Executed Request for a Trial Date by 9 January…

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 T

Details

AGLC: B v T [2007] QSC 55
Case: [2007] QSC 55
Decision Date: 15 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff commenced proceedings in the Family Court of Australia seeking an adjustment of the parties’ property interests under Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld). The plaintiff pleaded that they and the defendant were in a de facto relationship between 1997 and 1998 in Queensland and that the relationship ended in Victoria in 2001. The defendant denied that the parties were in a de facto relationship and that the court had jurisdiction to exercise its powers under Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld).

The court had to determine whether the parties were in a de facto relationship within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld). The court found that the relationship did not meet the criteria for a de facto relationship under the Act because the parties were not in a genuine domestic partnership. The court held that there was no evidence of shared financial responsibilities or other indicators of a relationship of a kind which the legislature intended to be covered by the statute.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for an adjustment of the parties’ property interests. The court found that the relationship between the parties was not a de facto relationship for the purposes of Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld). The application was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.

CITATION:	B v T [2007] QSC 055
PARTIES:	B (respondent/plaintiff) v T (applicant/defendant)
FILE NO/S:	S 5118/03
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	15 March 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 March 2007
JUDGE:	Lyons J
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – RELATIONSHIP – where the plaintiff pleads that the defendant and the plaintiff lived together in a de facto relationship in Queensland between 1997 and 1998 – where the de facto relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant ended in Victoria in 2001 - where there is an application for an adjustment of the parties’ property interests under Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) – where the parties resided in Queensland prior to the commencement of Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) - whether the plaintiff and the defendant were in a de facto relationship to which Part 19 applies Acts Interpretation Act 1954, 14B Property Law Act 1974, Part 19, s 57, s 257, s 282(1) C v B [2006] Queensland Supreme Court 195 (applied) Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners Association (1908) 6 CLR 309 (considered) Kumagai Gumi Co Ltd v FCT (1999) 161 ALR 699 (applied)
COUNSEL:	T.D North SC and J.M Harper for the applicant. T.P Sullivan for the respondent.
SOLICITORS:	K.L King & Associates for the applicant. Simonidis Shoebridge Lawyers for the respondent.