Brunton and Kramer

[2014] FCCA 131

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BRUNTON & KRAMER [2014] FCCA 131

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW   ̶  Whether parties were in a de facto relationship in the State of Victoria – whether part of the parties de facto relationship was in a participating jurisdiction  ̶  whether application has reasonable prospect of success  ̶  whether application should be summarily dismissed.

Legislation:  

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.4AA, 90SL, 90SM, 90SK

Family Law Act 1997 (WA)
Family Court Act 1997 (Cth), s.45(2)
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), ss.17A, 39, 41

Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited [2008] FCAFC 60
Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1352
Bell Group Limited v Westpac Banking Corporation [2000] FCR 104, (2000) FCA 439
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd (2001) FCR 42, [2001] FCA 421

Applicant: MS BRUNTON

Respondent: MR KRAMER

File Number: DGC 928 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Phipps

Hearing date: 29 November 2013

Date of Last Submission: 29 November 2013

Delivered at: Dandenong

Delivered on: 31 January 2014

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: Appearing in person

Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr McNeill

Solicitors for the Respondent: North Lake Legal

ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed pursuant to s.17A of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth).

2. That the question of costs be reserved.

AND THE COURT NOTES:

1. The application is dismissed because the court finds it has no jurisdiction.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Brunton & Kramer is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA

AT DANDENONG

DGC 928 of 2013

MS BRUNTON

Applicant

And

MR KRAMER

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant filed this proceeding on 15 April 2013 in the Dandenong Registry of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The Dandenong Registry is in the State of Victoria. The applicant applies for an order for alteration of property interests of a de facto relationship. Although the application does not say so specifically it is an application for an order for alteration of property interests pursuant to s.90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) or perhaps an application for a declaration under s.90SL.

2. The respondent applies for summary dismissal of the application.  He says that the whole of the de facto relationship took place in the State of Western Australia and so the Federal Circuit Court of Australia has no jurisdiction.

3. The applicant says that the de facto relationship commenced in about September 2001 when the parties were residing in Victoria.  In October 2004 the parties moved to Western Australia and lived in a de facto relationship there until April or May 2011 when the de facto relationship broke down.  The respondent says that while the parties were in a boyfriend girlfriend relationship in Victoria the de facto relationship did not commence until they moved to Western Australia in October 2004.  He says the relationship broke down in February 2011…