BRADY & HARRIS

In *Brady & Harris*, the applicant, Mr Brady, and the respondent, Ms Harris, sought an adjustment of property interests under the *Domestic Relationships Act 1994* (ACT). The primary dispute concerned the determination of preliminary issues, including the court's jurisdiction and whether the applicant should be granted leave to commence proceedings out of time. The court was required to consider the length of the domestic relationship, the circumstances surrounding the transfer of jointly owned property into the respondent's sole name without consideration paid to the applicant, and the applicant's declaration of being single for social security purposes.

The court was tasked with determining whether it possessed jurisdiction to make orders concerning property located outside the Australian Capital Territory, noting that while it could not make orders *in rem*, it could make *in personam* orders directed at the parties. Furthermore, the court had to decide whether to grant the applicant leave to commence proceedings out of time, considering the relatively short delay and the potential hardship to each party. The court also needed to assess the nature of the domestic relationship, specifically its commencement and termination dates, and the financial contributions and commitments between the parties.

Faulks DCJ found that the domestic relationship subsisted from 1988 until approximately May 2008. Leave was granted *nunc pro tunc* for the applicant to commence proceedings, as the application was filed only months out of time, the applicant had a case to argue, and the hardship to the applicant in refusing leave outweighed any hardship to the respondent, which could be addressed by costs. The court noted that the transfer of the Gold Coast property was altered to include consideration to minimise capital gains tax, and that the applicant's redundancy was a factor in the transfer. The court also considered the applicant's payments towards household expenses, finding that even if characterised as board, their significance was diminished by the respondent's prior acceptance of such payments.