BOSWORTH & FIRKINS

This case involved a dispute between Mr Bosworth (the applicant) and Ms Firkins (the respondent) concerning the division of their property following the end of their de facto relationship. The proceedings were initially brought under the *Domestic Relationships Act 1994* (ACT), but the court considered whether they should have been brought under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and whether leave was required to commence proceedings out of time. The applicant sought an equal division of the parties' assets, while the respondent contended that each party should retain the property in their own name, based on an alleged agreement made at the commencement of the relationship.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included the date of the termination of the domestic relationship for the purposes of property adjustment, the validity and effect of an alleged oral agreement between the parties regarding their property, and the appropriate division of the asset pool. The court also had to consider various claims regarding contributions, including the respondent's initial contribution, mortgage repayments made after separation, discrepancies in earning capacity and superannuation entitlements, and whether money spent on legal fees or reasonable living expenses should be added back to the asset pool.

The court found that while physical separation occurred in April 2009, this did not necessarily mark the termination of the relationship for legal purposes. Regarding the alleged agreement, the court noted that even if such an agreement existed, it would not be enforceable under section 33 of the *Domestic Relationships Act* as it was not in writing, signed by the parties, and accompanied by independent legal advice certificates. The court proceeded to consider the division of the asset pool, taking into account the parties' contributions and other relevant factors, including adjustments for earning capacity and superannuation.

The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $106,240 within 60 days. Otherwise, each party was to retain sole ownership of property currently in their name or possession and be solely liable for any liabilities in their name or secured over property in their possession. Provisions were also made for the return of subpoenaed material.