BAXTER & MAPLE

In the Family Court of Australia, Mr Baxter (the applicant) sought property settlement orders against Ms Maple (the respondent) concerning their de facto relationship. The dispute arose from the division of assets and liabilities following the parties' separation. Ms Maple did not appear at the hearing, and the matter proceeded unopposed.

The court was required to determine whether the parties had lived in a de facto relationship for the purposes of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and to make just and equitable property settlement orders. A further issue was the appropriate method of service of court documents on Ms Maple, given her initial unavailability.

Justice Macmillan found that the parties had lived in a de facto relationship from late October 2005 until November 2010, and again from February 2011 to May 2011. The court was satisfied that Ms Maple was aware of the proceedings and had chosen not to participate, rendering the application unopposed. The court applied the principles of making just and equitable orders in property settlement matters, considering the financial contributions and liabilities of each party. The court noted that substituted service had been effected and that Ms Maple had subsequently been in direct communication with the applicant's solicitor.

By consent, the court declared the de facto relationship and made orders for the transfer of Ms Maple's interest in the Suburb B property to Mr Baxter, with Mr Baxter indemnifying Ms Maple regarding the mortgage and outgoings. Ms Maple was ordered to pay her half of the debt owed to First Credit Union (New Zealand) and to indemnify Mr Baxter for her share. The court also ordered that if Ms Maple failed to sign the transfer documents, a Registrar could do so on her behalf. Otherwise, each party was to retain their existing superannuation, vehicles, bank accounts, and other possessions, and be responsible for their own liabilities. The application was otherwise dismissed.