Colburn & Cleese

In this case, the appellant and respondent were in a de facto relationship for a period of time, the length of which was contested. The appellant admitted the relationship existed from 1995 until the end of 2000, while the respondent contended for a relationship that began in 1990 and ended in May 2014. The dispute over the length of the de facto relationship was fundamental to the establishment of jurisdiction for the respondent’s application for property settlement under Pt VIIIAB of the Act. The primary judge found the relationship endured until May 2014, though punctuated by several periods of separation, and that the de facto relationship broke down earlier than 2002 and resumed before November 2006. The Supreme Court judgment, entered in November 2006, was based on the premise that the parties’ de facto relationship had broken down four years prior in November 2002.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the primary judge was correct in finding that the de facto relationship endured until May 2014, and whether the court had the power to set aside the agreement as to judgment under s 41 of the State Act. The court had to consider the evidence presented and determine the length of the de facto relationship, as well as whether the primary judge had the power to set aside the agreement as to judgment. The court also had to consider whether the Supreme Court judgment obstructed the grant of any subsequent property settlement relief under Pt VIIIAB of the Act.

The court's reasoning and outcome was that the appeal succeeds with costs and the proceedings must be remitted for re-hearing. The court found that the primary judge's findings were not supported by the evidence and that the de facto relationship did not endure until May 2014. The court also found that the primary judge did not have the power to set aside the agreement as to judgment under s 41 of the State Act. The court held that the primary judge's decision was flawed and that the proceedings must be remitted for re-hearing. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence presented and a careful consideration of the legal issues involved.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal succeeds with costs and the proceedings must be remitted for re-hearing. The court found that the primary judge's findings were not supported by the evidence and that the de facto relationship did not endure until May 2014. The court also found that the primary judge did not have the power to set aside the agreement as to judgment under s 41 of the State Act. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence presented and a careful consideration of the legal issues involved. The court's final orders were that the appeal succeeds with costs and the proceedings must be remitted for re-hearing.