Beckham & Quarrington

Case [2024] FedCFamC1A 136

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Beckham & Quarrington [2024] FedCFamC1A 136

Appeal from: Beckham & Quarrington (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 74
Appeal number: NAA 40 of 2024
File number: BRC 12076 of 2017
Judgment of: ALDRIDGE J
Date of judgment: 7 August 2024
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Appeal from declaration that the parties were in a de facto relationship – Leave to appeal not required – Alleged incorrect findings were open on the evidence – Where the reasons are brief but clear – Extensive reasons not required for accepting the evidence of a particular witness – Judge’s task is to apply the law not recite it – Appeal dismissed.
Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 4AA

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 13.53
Cases cited:

AMS v AIF (1999) 199 CLR 160; [1999] HCA 26

Bennett and Bennett (1991) FLC 92-191; [1990] FamCA 148

CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 182; [1998] HCA 67

Crick & Bennett (2018) FLC 93-832; [2018] FamCAFC 68

Cuan & Kostelac (2017) FLC 93-801; [2017] FamCAFC 188

Dahl & Hamblin (2011) FLC 93-480; [2011] FamCAFC 202

Fairbairn v Radecki (2022) 275 CLR 400; [2022] HCA 18

Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd (2002) 209 CLR 478; [2002] HCA 22

Gregory R Ball Pty Ltd v Stead (1993) 9 NSWCCR 148

Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407; [2000] HCA 1

Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247

Number of paragraphs: 58
Date of hearing: 7 August 2024
Place: Sydney (via video link)
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr Hartwell
Solicitor for the Appellant: C Lawyers
The Respondent: Self-represented litigant

ORDERS

NAA 40 of 2024
BRC 12076 of 2017

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:

MR BECKHAM

Appellant
AND:

MS QUARRINGTON

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

ALDRIDGE J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 AUGUST 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Application in an Appeal filed 24 July 2024 is dismissed.

2.The appeal is dismissed.

3.The application for costs is dismissed.

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 the pseudonym Beckham & Quarrington has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

EX…

Continue reading Beckham & Quarrington

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Beckham & Quarrington [2024] FedCFamC1A 136
Case
[2024] FedCFamC1A 136
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Beckham & Quarrington involved an appeal by the appellant, Mr. Beckham, against a decision that he was in a de facto relationship with the respondent, Ms. Quarrington. The matter was heard and dismissed by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in its appellate jurisdiction. The appellant challenged the lower court's findings that he and Ms. Quarrington were in a de facto relationship, arguing that the findings were incorrect and not supported by the evidence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant and the respondent were in a de facto relationship and, if so, the period during which this relationship existed. The court had to determine whether the lower court's findings were correct and whether the evidence supported those findings. The appellant argued that the lower court had erred in its interpretation of the evidence and had failed to properly consider certain aspects of the relationship.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the lower court's reasons, although brief, were clear and that the findings were open on the evidence presented. The court held that the appellant's argument that the lower court had failed to consider certain aspects of the relationship was unfounded, as the judge's task was to apply the law and not to recite it at length. The court also found that the appellant's argument that the lower court had incorrectly assessed the evidence was unpersuasive, as the lower court had accepted the evidence of a particular witness and there was no basis for the appeal court to overturn this finding. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the application for costs was also dismissed.

The court's final order was that the appeal filed by the appellant on 24 July 2024 was dismissed, the appeal itself was dismissed, and the application for costs was dismissed. The form of the order was subject to review and potential variation in accordance with the relevant rules of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

Orders

Orders of the court

NAA 40 of 2024

BRC 12076 of 2017

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MR BECKHAM

Appellant

AND:

MS QUARRINGTON

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

ALDRIDGE J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 AUGUST 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Application in an Appeal filed 24 July 2024 is dismissed.

2. The appeal is dismissed.

3. The application for costs is dismissed.

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

The following is taken from what appear to be unchallenged findings made by his Honour.BACKGROUND The parties met in January or February 2011. At the time the respondent was living in Region D and travelled to Brisbane to see the appellant. A sexual relationship began and in February 2012 the respondent conceived the parties’ child X. The appellant attended nearly all of the respondent’s antenatal appointments. In October 2012 the respondent moved into the appellant’s house in Brisbane. At the least, the appellant paid the rent, household expenses (excluding food for the respondent) and the expenses of the baby. It was not suggested that the respondent had an independent source of income. The parties coparented X. The parties jointly told the appellant’s mother about the pregnancy. X was christened in 2013 at a ceremony attended by family and friends. The parties had a public relationship at children’s events such as birthday parties, park play, ballet classes and music classes. The parties spent many weekends together with X and the appellant’s child from a previous relationship in Region D. It may well be that these matters of themselves are sufficient to justify his Honour’s findings. In addition, his Honour found the respondent took care of the appellant’s daughter at times (at [95]). There was a public aspect to the relationship as described by two witnesses. The parties went together on a business trip to Region E. They hosted birthdays for X inviting friends and had people stay with them for two to three weeks in Brisbane. They attended a gathering with family and friends at a restaurant. There are family photographs showing the parties, X and the appellant’s daughter as a group. These were produced by a friend of the respondent’s. The parties travelled as a family unit to Melbourne, Region F in New South Wales and Region D for business trips or holidays. This led his Honour to conclude:100.That the de facto relationship started in October 2012. At this point their relationship changed from boyfriend and girlfriend and they moved into the same home and continued an infrequent sexual relationship. [The respondent] rendered some domestic tasks for both. There was a social and public aspect to their relationship after they started living in the same home.101.Their de facto relationship ended in November 2014 when [the respondent] moved to sleep full time in her own bed in the anteroom. Their sexual relationship has ceased. The [sic] were completely estranged. Thereafter, they lived as a separated couple under the one roof but coparenting [X]. They eventually lived totally apart.102.The above two events were the “watershed” moments in their relationship evidencing the commencing and then ending their de facto relationship.103.[The appellant] during this period more than coparented. His actions bespeak of a different intention of living together on a genuine domestic basis. His actions bespeak differently to his now recorded statements. I do not accept he put any conditions upon [the respondent’s] occupation of the Brisbane home.THE APPEAL

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.