FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BULLIVANT & HOLT | [2012] FamCA 134 |
| FAMILY LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Proceedings brought pursuant to Domestic Relationships Act 1994 (ACT) – cross-vested jurisdiction FAMILY LAW - PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Domestic relationships – whether a domestic relationship existed – where parties did not live together – where parties discussed marriage – where the applicant assisted the respondent with renovations and home duties and had a relationship with the respondent’s son – finding that there was personal or financial commitment and support of material benefit – finding that a domestic relationship existed – whether a domestic relationship existed for two years – where respondent alleges there were many relationships or many periods of separation in the relationship – whether there was a series of relationships or whether periods of relationship can be aggregated to constitute one relationship – finding that there was one relationship for at least two years – contributions – no adjustment to contributions FAMILY LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether leave can be granted retrospectively to commence proceedings out of time |
| Domestic Relationships Act 1994 (ACT), ss 3, 12, 15, 19 |
| Booth v Ward (2007) DFC 95-408 Crellin v Robertson (2004) 32 Fam LR 406 Davies v Richardson [2011] NSWSC 810 Ferris v Winslade (1998) 22 Fam LR 725 Lipman v Lipman (1989) 13 Fam LR 1 McKenzie v Storer [2007] ACTSC 88 McKone v Maretta (1999) DFC 95-213 Thomas v Badger (1990) DFC 95-078 |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Bullivant |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Holt |
| FILE NUMBER: | CAC | 57 | of | 2011 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 16 March 2012 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Canberra |
| PLACE HEARD: | Canberra |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Faulks DCJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 19 September 2011 - 23 September 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr J Millar |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Farrar Gesini & Dunn |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr R Lethbridge, SC Ms G Eldershaw |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Elringtons Solicitors |
Orders
The parties shall forthwith do all acts and things and sign all necessary documents to cause:
(a)$72,193 of the proceeds of sale of the property known as … B Street, Suburb P in the Australian Capital Territory, held in trust by J Law Firm, to be paid forthwith to Ms Bullivant, born … October 1969 (“the applicant”); and
(b)To pay 37 per cent of any interest accumulated in respect of the said account over and above the figure of $72,193 to the applicant and to pay the balance to the respondent.
Within 42 days, Mr Holt, born … January 1970 (“the respondent”) shall pay to the applicant the sum of $74,608.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Bullivant & Holt has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
| Family Court of… |
Continue reading Bullivant & Holt
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bullivant & Holt [2012] FamCA 134
- Case
- [2012] FamCA 134
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether a domestic relationship existed between the parties, particularly given they did not cohabit and the respondent alleged multiple relationships or periods of separation. Secondly, the court had to consider whether leave could be granted retrospectively to commence proceedings out of time, should the initial jurisdictional question be answered in the affirmative.
In addressing the existence of a domestic relationship, the court found that despite the parties not living together, their discussions of marriage, the applicant's assistance with renovations and home duties, and her relationship with the respondent's son, demonstrated a personal and financial commitment and support of material benefit. The court held that these factors established a domestic relationship. Furthermore, it determined that the relationship, even if punctuated by periods of separation, constituted a single relationship that endured for at least two years, thereby satisfying the jurisdictional requirement. The court also found no adjustment to contributions was warranted.
The court ordered that $72,193 of the proceeds of sale of a property be paid to the applicant, along with 37 per cent of any accumulated interest above that sum. Additionally, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant a further sum of $74,608 within 42 days.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The parties shall forthwith do all acts and things and sign all necessary documents to cause:
(a) $72,193 of the proceeds of sale of the property known as … B Street, Suburb P in the Australian Capital Territory, held in trust by J Law Firm, to be paid forthwith to Ms Bullivant, born … October 1969 (“the applicant”); and
(b) To pay 37 per cent of any interest accumulated in respect of the said account over and above the figure of $72,193 to the applicant and to pay the balance to the respondent.
2.
Within 42 days, Mr Holt, born … January 1970 (“the respondent”) shall pay to the applicant the sum of $74,608.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.