BROWNSLOW & PIERCE

In the matter of *Brownslow & Pierce*, Cleary J of the Family Court of Australia determined a dispute concerning the nature and duration of a de facto relationship and the subsequent property settlement between the parties. The applicant asserted a ten-year relationship, while the respondent initially contended for a one-year duration. The respondent, who was incarcerated, also had final parenting orders stipulating the child live with the applicant and have no time with him.

The court was required to determine the precise length of the de facto relationship between the parties. Furthermore, it needed to decide on a just and equitable property settlement, considering the respondent's incarceration, the final parenting orders, the respondent's greater financial contributions, and the applicant's sole care of the child and her ongoing financial obligations. The court also had to address the disposition of debts owed to the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales, which had secured caveats against the property for legal fees incurred by the respondent in his criminal trial, noting these debts were incurred post-separation and were personal to the respondent.

Cleary J found that the de facto relationship existed for ten years, from November 2005 to August 2015, accepting the respondent's concession on the relationship's length. In relation to property settlement, the court concluded that a substantial adjustment in favour of the applicant was warranted due to her sole responsibility for the child's financial needs. Consequently, the net proceeds from the sale of the parties' home were to be divided 54 per cent in favour of the applicant and 46 per cent in favour of the respondent. The court ordered that the respondent's share of the sale proceeds was to be used to discharge the debt owed to the Legal Aid Commission.

The court made orders for the respondent to transfer the home to the applicant as trustee for sale. Upon settlement of the sale, proceeds were to be distributed in a specified order of priority, including payment of sale expenses, discharge of the mortgage, outstanding rates, and then the net proceeds divided as ordered. The respondent was restrained from dealing with the property pending settlement. The court also ordered the Legal Aid Commission to withdraw its caveats upon notification of exchange of contracts. Other orders dealt with the transfer of personal property and mutual indemnities for liabilities. In the event of a party's failure to execute necessary documents, a Registrar was appointed to do so.