CALDER & CAXTON

In *Calder & Caxton*, Hogan J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application for interim property orders, maintenance, and litigation funding. The central dispute revolved around the applicant's assertion of a de facto relationship with the respondent, which the respondent contested. The court was therefore required to determine whether it possessed the necessary jurisdiction to grant the interim relief sought, given the unresolved question of the existence of a de facto relationship.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it had the power to make interim property orders, maintenance orders, and litigation funding orders in circumstances where the existence of a de facto relationship, which is a prerequisite for jurisdiction under the relevant legislation, had not yet been established. The court had to consider the threshold requirements for exercising its jurisdiction in family law matters, particularly concerning interim applications.

Hogan J reasoned that the court's jurisdiction to make orders under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) in de facto relationship cases is contingent upon the existence of such a relationship. As the existence of the de facto relationship between the parties was in dispute and had not been determined, the court lacked the foundational jurisdiction to entertain the application for interim property, maintenance, and litigation funding. The court applied the principle that jurisdiction must be established before substantive orders can be made, even on an interim basis.

Consequently, Hogan J dismissed the application. The costs of and incidental to the application were reserved to the trial judge.