Beckham & Quarrington (No 3) - [2024] FedCFamC2F 74

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Beckham & Quarrington (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 74

File number(s): BRC 12076 of 2017

Judgment of: JUDGE DUNKLEY

Date of judgment: 25 January 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - threshold hearing - determine whether or not parties lived in a de facto relationship

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 4AA

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 107

Date of hearing: 19 and 20 October 2023

Place: Brisbane

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr van der Weegen

Solicitor for the Applicant: Trianon Law

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Hartwell

Solicitor for the Respondent: Norris Law
ORDERS

BRC 12076 of 2017

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS QUARRINGTON

Applicant

AND:
MR BECKHAM

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE DUNKLEY

DATE OF ORDER:

25 JANUARY 2024

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
1.Ms Quarrington and Mr Beckham lived in a de facto relationship in Queensland from October 2012 until November 2014.
2.There is one child of that de facto relationship, X, born in 2012.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT
3.This case is listed for further directions at 2.15pm (AEST) on 12 February 2024 by Microsoft Teams so as to make directions to prepare it for a final hearing relevant to what, if any, property settlement orders are to be made.

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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish 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 a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE DUNKLEY

Ms Quarrington (the applicant) and Mr Beckham (the respondent) have been engaged in protracted family law proceedings. In the course of the proceedings, a Judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia made an order on 21 November 2018 giving leave to the applicant pursuant to s 44(6), to pursue out of time a property settlement application against the respondent.
On 20 August 2019, Justices Ryan, Kent and Austin upon the hearing of Mr Beckham’s appeal against the order made 21 November 2018, allowed the appeal, set aside the leave order, and remitted the rehearing to a Judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
Regrettably, the remitted hearing did not come on quickly. It languished because parenting proceedings and contravention hearings took priority. I am now tasked to hear the remitted leave application because I am a Judge not based in Brisbane, and have had no dealings with the parties and their many other applications mainly of a parenting nature.
Mr Beckham was initially represented by Mr Wilson KC who appeared for him at both earlier hearings, being the first instance hearing on 21 November 2018, and the appeal hearing on 20 August 2019.
The rehearing was listed a number of times for final hearing. On one of the listed dates, it was adjourned for a month to allow Mr Beckham to recover from an injury that inhibited his ability to sit for long periods. A medical certificate dated 6 December 2022 by a GP, Dr G, was provided certifying to the ailment and that the period of inability to appear in court existed from 6 December 2022 to 16 December 2022.
Mr Wilson KC argued although on a direct brief he required his client to be present to give instructions.
Given that little had changed in Mr Beckham’s case relevant to the granting or refusing of leave since the first instance hearing, that would not have been a submission that found any attraction for the Court.
However, the applicant through her counsel, advised she intended to pursue an entirely new proposition that was not run either at first instance or upon appeal.
That new proposition was, that rather than final separation occurring in 2014 as previously run by the applicant, it would be her case that separation did not in fact occur prior to 23 May 2017. Her application for leave was filed on 12 September 2018, which if the new proposition as to separation date was correct, did not require leave because the parties de facto relationship, as she describes it, did not end prior to May 2017, and she could have filed in the ordinary course without needing leave, her application for property settlement.
So rather than the case simply being a hearing about leave issue pursuant to s 44(6), it is now also a threshold jurisdiction issue as to whether or not the parties lived in a de facto relationship, and if so, for how long and when that relationship ended.
Until the filing of Ms Quarrington’s affidavit on 8 December 2022, and the filing on the same day her case outline, this jurisdictional issue had never been flagged nor run as a part of the proceedings.
As a consequence of the significant change in parameters, the hearing on 9 December 2022 was adjourned, ultimately by consent to 15 and 16 May 2023, and a number of directions and orders were made to ready the two issues for hearing and to “clean up the file”.
The orders and directions made on 9 December 2022 were as follows:
1.That the applicant file and serve by no later than 4.00pm on 23 December 2022 an amendment of her Application in a Case filed 12 September 2018 articulating in her Amended Application in a Case the jurisdiction orders, orders for leave and any other ancillary injunctive relief sought by her.
2.That the applicant file and serve a single consolidated affidavit in relation to the relief sought in her amended application referred to at order 1 herein, and any affidavit of any witness in support thereof, by no later than 4.00pm on 10 February 2023.
3.That the respondent file an serve a response to the amended application referred to at order 1 herein setting out the orders he seeks and his single consolidated affidavit in support, and any affidavit of any witness in support thereof, by no later than 25 March 2023.
4.That leave is granted for the applicant to have issued a subpoena directed to the Queensland Police Service by no later than 31 January 2023.
5.That each party is to email to […] and file and serve a case outline relevant to the issues to be determined by no later than 4.00pm on 10 May 2023 setting out:
a.a minute of orders sought;
b.a list of documents being relied upon;
c.a brief relevant chronology; and
d.no more than seven (7) pages of written submission by way of opening or closing address with leave to augment those submissions with oral submissions at the conclusion of the hearing.
6.That Applications in a Case filed 25 June 2020 and 15 June 2021 be dismissed.
7.That Application in a Proceeding filed 17 August 2022 be dismissed.
8.That order 1 made 10 November 2022 be varied to read:
That pursuant to section 102NA(3)(b) [Ms Quarrington] and [Mr Beckham] are each prohibited from personally cross examining the other.
9.That by consent the matter be adjourned to 10.00am on 15 and 16 May 2023 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia at Brisbane for the hearing of the amended application referred to at order 1 herein.
10.That the hearing on 15 and 16 May 2023 will be conducted in person and for that purpose all parties and their legal representatives are required to personally attend court.
11.That each party pay their own costs relevant to the proceedings today.
On 8 May 2023, Mr Beckham filed an Application in a Proceeding and affidavit seeking to vacate the hearing dates of 15 and 16 May 2023 as he was “booked” for a medical procedure in May 2023 and needed a 4 week period of recuperation thereafter. A medical certificate dated April 2023 was signed by a GP, Dr G.
That application to adjourn the hearing date of 15 and 16 May 2023 was denied for extempore reasons then delivered, principally because Mr Beckham had not filed documents as directed on 9 December 2022 and had no medical or other explanation for that non-compliance.
On 15 May 2023, the parties through their respective counsel agreed that Ms Quarrington be given leave to proceed with her application for properly settlement if it was first found she and Mr Beckham had in fact lived in a de facto relationship and it was ordered:
THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT:
1.That leave be granted for [Ms Quarrington] to issue proceedings out of time (on a without admissions basis vis a vis as to whether the parties were in a de facto relationship).
2. That there be no order for costs.
THE COURT ORDERS:
3.That [Mr Beckham] who denies the existence of a de facto relationship is to file and serve by no later than 4:00pm on 25 August 2023 any affidavit material by himself or any other witness that he intends to rely upon relevant to whether or not he and [Ms Quarrington] lived in in a de facto relationship).
4.That [Ms Quarrington] is to file and serve by no later than 4:00pm on 29 September 2023 any affidavit by a witness other than herself relevant to the question of whether or not she and [Mr Beckham] lived in a de facto relationship.
5.That the hearing relevant to whether or not the parties lived in a de facto relationship is listed for two (2) days commencing on 19 October 2023 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court o Australia.
IT IS NOTED:
A.That an Order pursuant to s 102 NA(1)(c)(iv) of the Family Law Act 1975 was made on 9 December 2022.
The hearing as to whether or not Ms Quarrington and Mr Beckham had lived in a de facto relationship, and if so for how long, ran for two days on 19 and 20 October 2023.
At the conclusion of the hearing on 20 October 2023, judgment was reserved.
Whilst the judgment was reserved, Mr Beckham on 13 November 2023 filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking to reopen the evidence in the case. By Response to the Application in a Proceeding filed on 5 December 2023 Ms Quarrington opposed the granting of leave to reopen.
On 8 December 2023, judgment on the leave to reopen application was delivered[1], with leave to reopen being refused.
[1] Beckham & Quarrington (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 1591
DOCUMENTS AND ORDERS SOUGHT
With respect to the hearing on 19 and 20 October 2023, Ms Quarrington relied on the following documents:
·Affidavit of Ms Quarrington sworn 17 February 2023 and 27 September 2023
·Affidavit of Ms H sworn 27 September 2023
·Affidavit of Ms J sworn 27 September 2023
·Affidavit of Ms K sworn 29 September 2023
In a case outline prepared for Ms Quarrington and filed on 16 October 2023, the orders and declarations she sought were pleaded as follows:
(1)A declaration under s 90RD that the parties were in a de facto relationship.
(2)That leave be given for the Applicant to file an Initiating Application for property proceedings under s 90SM.
(3)Costs.
With respect to the hearing on 19 and 20 October 2023, Mr Beckham relied on the following documents:
·Affidavit of Mr Beckham sworn 19 September 2023
·Affidavit of Mr L sworn 13 September 2023
·Affidavit of Mr M sworn 13 September 2023
·Affidavit of Ms N sworn 13 September 2023
Mr Beckham additionally sought to rely on an affidavit by Mr O. Mr O could not be made available for cross examination and that affidavit was not read.
Mr Beckham also sought leave to rely upon an affidavit by Mr P sworn 18 October 2023, it was filed the day before the hearing.
It was filed so late it was said to be prejudicial to Ms Quarrington’s case. Leave to rely on that affidavit was not granted and it was not read.
In a case outline filed on 18 October 2023, the orders and declarations sought by Mr Beckham were pled as follows:
1.Pursuant to section 90R it is declared that a de facto relationship never existed between the applicant and the respondent.
2.The Application is dismissed.
3.The applicant pays the respondents costs of the Application.
EVIDENCE
The parties have a child, X, aged 11, who was born in 2012. Mr Beckham has one other child from a different relationship, Q, who is 14 years of age, and was born in 2009.
Ms Quarrington was born in 1967.
Mr Beckham was born in 1954.
Ms Quarrington and Mr Beckham never married.
Ms Quarrington says she and Mr Beckham met in early 2011 and shortly thereafter started to date.
Mr Beckham says they met online in early 2011 and met face to face the following month.
Mr Beckham says his mindset at this time was:
I had for some time and still was involved in protracted proceedings in the Family Court with the mother of [Q]. That was my focus and I did not want to be in a relationship with anyone.[2]
[2] Affidavit of Mr Beckham sworn 19 September 2023, para 8
In 2011, Ms Quarrington was working and living in Region D, Queensland in rented accommodation.
In 2011, Mr Beckham was working as a professional and living in a home in a suburb of Brisbane.
Ms Quarrington says she travelled regularly to Brisbane to see Mr Beckham and:
From about June 2011, I stayed with [Mr Beckham] at [his Brisbane home] for about 4-5 nights each week.[3]
[3] Affidavit of Ms Quarrington sworn 17 February 2023, para 11
On the basis of the above, Ms Quarrington asserts the commencement date of the de facto relationship to be in June 2011.
Relevant to the period early to mid-2011, Mr Beckham says:
I saw [Ms Quarrington] infrequently. It was no more than 2 or 3 times.[4]
[4] Affidavit of Mr Beckham sworn 19 September 2023, para 11
In about mid-2011, a solicitor began acting for Ms Quarrington in her family law proceedings with her former husband.
Ms Quarrington says, when she was at Mr Beckham’s home she regularly undertook a variety of domestic tasks for herself and Mr Beckham whilst he attended to his work, and would when Q spent time with her father help care for her.
Ms Quarrington and Mr Beckham agree during this period there were sexual interactions between them.
In 2012 Ms Quarrington conceived X.
Mr Beckham quantifies the sexual interaction he had with Ms Quarrington prior to X’s conception as:
I only had sex no more than twice with [Ms Quarrington] in 2011.[5]
[5] Affidavit of Mr Beckham sworn 19 September 2023, para 28
Ms Quarrington quantifies the sexual interaction she had with Mr Beckham as:
We had intercourse on almost every occasion.
We had intercourse on many occasions.[6]
[6] Affidavit of Ms Quarrington sworn 27 September 2023, paras 24 and 29
Ms Quarrington says she began to live at a home in Region D owned by a company controlled by Mr Beckham in February 2012.
After telling Mr Beckham of her pregnancy, Ms Quarrington says they discussed marriage but she says she did not want to marry.
Ms Quarrington and Mr Beckham agree Mr Beckham attended nearly all Ms Quarrington’s antenatal appointments.
In late 2012, Ms Quarrington moved into the Brisbane property occupied by Mr Beckham.
About the above, Mr Beckham writes in paragraph 43 of his Affidavit the following commentary and narrative:
[Ms Quarrington] and I agreed that it was in the baby’s best interest that there was not a repeat of what had happened with [Q], and that whilst there was not going to be a de facto relationship between us, which I had made extremely clear, I did not want to co-parent the baby with her, and we discussed arrangements about how that could happen. I told her I was prepared to continue the rent and household expenses, but she had to pay for all her personal expenses, including food. I told her I would contribute to the baby’s expenses, and we could live separately under the same roof and no friends with benefits. [Ms Quarrington] agreed to this arrangement and said she was going to receive maternity leave payment’s from the birth for a year. It was on that basis, [Ms Quarrington] moved to Brisbane … house shortly before the birth of our child [X].
In response to the above, in paragraph 39 of her affidavit sworn 27 September 2023, Ms Quarrington wrote:
I say we did not have a conversation about co-parenting or about living separately under the same roof.
Ms Quarrington and Mr Beckham jointly told Mr Beckham’s mother about the pregnancy.
After X’s birth, Ms Quarrington says she established a routine in the household involving caring for X and Q (as needed) and undertaking domestic tasks for herself and Mr Beckham.
X was christened in 2013 at a ceremony attended by family and friends. Ms Quarrington dates the end of her sexual relationship with Mr Beckham as being “[in] or about [late] 2014” but maintains they continued to “still sleep in the same bed” until July 2016 when she moved to sleep in X’s room which was the anteroom to the main bedroom.
Mr Beckham says they rarely slept in the same bed after Ms Quarrington moved into his home, saying she occupied a single bed in an anteroom to his bedroom.
In the period late 2014 to mid-2017, Ms Quarrington describes family holidays. Whereas Mr Beckham says he went on business trips and Ms Quarrington and X coincidentally accompanied him.
During the above period, Ms Quarrington describes children’s birthday parties and extracurricular activities for X often attended as a couple and describes couple social events with friends and family in the Brisbane home.
Mr Beckham says there was never a public aspect of a couple relationship between he and Ms Quarrington except for children’s events.[7]
[7] Affidavit of Mr Beckham Affidavit, para 51
In mid-2017, a temporary protection order was made, and thereafter Mr Beckham lived initially in a mobile home on the Brisbane property until Ms Quarrington and X moved out of the Brisbane property and returned to live in Region D.
Mr Beckham says there was no financial interdependence between he and Ms Quarrington and that they never jointly owned any assets.
Ms Quarrington says they shared some living expenses and Mr Beckham paid the maternity expenses relevant to X’s birth.
The parties agree there were many weekends spent together with Q and X in Region D.
MS K
She is Ms Quarrington’s relative and an educator by occupation, she understood “that [Ms Quarrington] and [Mr Beckham] were in a relationship from 2011 to 2017”.
In paragraph 12 of her affidavit, she wrote:
My husband and I often travelled to Brisbane to spend time with [Mr Beckham], [Ms Quarrington] and [X] for family celebrations.
When cross examined, she said:
I have been to the home a couple of times to go to functions … [Mr Beckham] did not come.
I can’t remember if we went out as a couple.
We attend [Q’s] birthday party.
We have been to [theme parks] as two families.
MS J
She is Ms Quarrington’s relative but describes herself as being like a sister or best friend to Ms Quarrington.
When cross examined, she said:
I hadn’t met [Mr Beckham] before the [Region E] trip.
In paragraph 12 of her affidavit, she wrote:
In or about [early] 2013 [Mr Beckham] brought [Ms Quarrington] and [X] with him on a business trip to [Region E].
When cross examined she also said:
I went to [X]’s first birthday in 2013.
and
I also attended [X]’s birthdays each year until 2017.
and
I stayed with them each time for 2 or 3 weeks [in Brisbane] depending on the circumstances.
Annexed to her affidavit were some family photographs which depicted Ms Quarrington, Mr Beckham, X and Q in a group.
MS H

In her affidavit she says she has known Ms Quarrington and Mr Beckham since mid-2014, having met them with X when Ms H and her 2 year old daughter attended the same toddler extracurricular classes.
She remembers Mr Beckham on occasions also bringing his mother to the class.
In paragraph 12 of her affidavit, she wrote the following conclusion:
I observed that [Ms Quarrington], [Mr Beckham], [X] and [Q] were happy and functioned a family unit.
In paragraph 21 of her affidavit, she wrote:
One Saturday night in or about [late] 2016 we joined [Ms Quarrington], [Mr Beckham], [X] and [Q] for a dinner at [a] restaurant. It was a family gathering with our family and also other couples that [Mr Beckham] and [Ms Quarrington] jointly knew as their acquaintances …
MS N
She is an administrative assistant.
She undertook work for a business at which Mr Beckham was the chairman from 2014. She says in her affidavit she was never aware Ms Quarrington resided with Mr Beckham.
She was cross examined about some dates in her affidavit and gave persuasive answers as to her memory.
MR M
He is a long-time friend of Mr Beckham and says he socialised with him regularly.
For reasons set out in paragraph 14 of his affidavit he concluded:
[Mr Beckham] was not in any de facto relationship with either of the children’s mother.
MR L
He first met Mr Beckham in 1993 and subsequently he says “they became friends”.
He says, when at Mr Beckham’s home in mid-2014, Mr Beckham took him upstairs at the Brisbane property to see X. He saw Ms Quarrington was upstairs with X.
DETERMINATION
These are civil proceedings and Ms Quarrington bears the onus of establishing the existence of the de facto relationship. The onus is on the civil standard, that is on the balance of probabilities.
De facto relationships are defined in s 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth):
Meaning of de facto relationship
(1)A person is in a de facto relationship with another person if:
(a)      the persons are not legally married to each other; and
(b)     the persons are not related by family (see subsection (6)); and
(c)      having regard to all the circumstances of their relationship, they have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis.
Paragraph (c) has effect subject to subsection (5).
Working out if persons have a relationship as a couple
(2)Those circumstances may include any or all of the following:
(a)      the duration of the relationship;
(b)     the nature and extent of their common residence;
(c)      whether a sexual relationship exists;
(d)     the degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between them;
(e)      the ownership, use and acquisition of their property;
(f)      the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;
(g)     whether the relationship is or was registered under a prescribed law of a State or Territory as a prescribed kind of relationship;
(h)     the care and support of children;
(i)      the reputation and public aspects of the relationship.
(3)No particular finding in relation to any circumstance is to be regarded as necessary in deciding whether the persons have a de facto relationship.
(4)A court determining whether a de facto relationship exists is entitled to have regard to such matters, and to attach such weight to any matter, as may seem appropriate to the court in the circumstances of the case.
(5)For the purposes of this Act:
(a)      a de facto relationship can exist between 2 persons of different sexes and between 2 persons of the same sex; and
(b)     a de facto relationship can exist even if one of the persons is legally married to someone else or in another de facto relationship.
When 2 persons are related by family
(6)For the purposes of subsection (1), 2 persons are related by family if:
(a)      one is the child (including an adopted child) of the other; or
(b)     one is another descendant of the other (even if the relationship between them is traced through an adoptive parent); or
(c)      they have a parent in common (who may be an adoptive parent of either or both of them).
For this purpose, disregard whether an adoption is declared void or has ceased to have effect.
It is agreed facts that Ms Quarrington and Mr Beckham were never legally married to each other and are not related by family.
Ms Quarrington dates the de facto relationship from June 2011 until May 2017.
Mr Beckham denies the existence of a de facto relationship for any period of time.
Ms Quarrington moved into Mr Beckham’s home in Brisbane on his invitation on a full time basis in late 2012. Mr Beckham does not dispute this.
From June 2011 until late 2012, Ms Quarrington says she spent up to 5 nights a week at Mr Beckham’s home. Mr Beckham denies this.
The parties’ had a sexual relationship, and a child, X, was born.
They dispute the length of time which they had a sexual relationship. Mr Beckham says they had infrequent sexual engagement and by inference none after X was conceived.
Ms Quarrington asserts more frequent sexual interactions which ceased in 2014.
Mr Beckham met the antenatal and maternity expenses for X and asserts otherwise the parties’ were financially independent. Ms Quarrington asserts some limited financial independence. They never owned joint assets or operated joint bank accounts.
Mr Beckham asserts having no commitment to a shared life and says he repeatedly told Ms Quarrington that he wanted no greater involvement with her than to coparent X.
Their relationship was never registered.
They did coparent and care for X, and at times, Mr Beckham’s older daughter Q.
There was a public aspect to their relationship as described by Ms H and Ms J. Neither was “shaken” during their cross examination on this aspect.
Family portraiture taken depict a family unit.
In November 2014, they started to occupy separate beds, Mr Beckham in the master room and Ms Quarrington in an adjoining anteroom. They travelled together as a family unit to Melbourne, Region F in NSW, and Region D. It matters little for the purpose of this case whether the trips were business trips or holidays or a mixture of both.
Considering the above, I find there was a de facto relationship wherein Ms Quarrington and Mr Beckham lived together as a couple in a bona fide domestic relationship.
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. Ms Quarrington rendered some domestic tasks for both. There was a social and public aspect to their relationship after they started living in the same home.
Their de facto relationship ended in late 2014 when Ms Quarrington moved to sleep full time in her own bed in the anteroom. Their sexual relationship has ceased. They were completely estranged. Thereafter, they lived as a separated couple under the one roof but coparenting X. They eventually lived totally apart.
The above two events were the “watershed” moments in their relationship evidencing the commencing and then ending their de facto relationship.
Mr Beckham 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 Ms Quarrington’s occupation of the Brisbane home.
Although there remained a public and coparenting aspect to their relationship after late 2014 until May 2017, theirs was in this period a different qualitative relationship as no more than separated coparents.
For the whole period they lived in Queensland.
Declarations will be made to reflect the above.
Directions will be made to prepare the case for final property settlement hearing, as leave out of time to file has already been granted.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and seven (107) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Dunkely.
Associate:
Dated: 25 January 2024

File number(s):	BRC 12076 of 2017
Judgment of:	JUDGE DUNKLEY
Date of judgment:	25 January 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW - threshold hearing - determine whether or not parties lived in a de facto relationship
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 4AA
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	107
Date of hearing:	19 and 20 October 2023
Place:	Brisbane
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr van der Weegen
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Trianon Law
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Hartwell
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Norris Law

BRC 12076 of 2017
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MS QUARRINGTON Applicant
AND:	MR BECKHAM Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE DUNKLEY
DATE OF ORDER:	25 JANUARY 2024