Bullivant & Holt

This matter concerned proceedings brought under the *Domestic Relationships Act 1994* (ACT), with jurisdiction cross-vested from the Family Court. The applicant, Ms Bullivant, sought property settlement from the respondent, Mr Holt, following the breakdown of their domestic relationship. The central dispute revolved around whether a domestic relationship, as defined by the Act, had existed for the requisite two-year period, and consequently, whether the court had jurisdiction to make property orders.

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.