DUFFLE and GREGORY - [2020] FCWA 89

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY COURT ACT 1997
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: DUFFLE and GREGORY [2020] FCWA 89
CORAM: SUTHERLAND CJ
HEARD: 6 & 7 MAY 2020
DELIVERED : 4 JUNE 2020
FILE NO/S: PTW 2538 of 2018
BETWEEN: MS DUFFLE
Applicant
AND
MR GREGORY
Respondent

Catchwords:

JURISDICTION - Whether parties were in a de facto relationship - Case turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Family Court Act 1997 (WA)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Self Represented Litigant
Respondent	:	Mr Sammut

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Self Represented Litigant
Respondent	:	Frichot Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Re F: Litigants in Person Guidelines (2001) FLC 93-072
Sinclair & Whittaker (2013) FLC 93-551
Truman v Clifton [2010] FCWA 91

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT – PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Duffle & Gregory has been approved by the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 243(8)(g) of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA).

SUTHERLAND CJ:

1[Ms Duffle] maintained that she and [Mr Gregory] lived in a de facto relationship from sometime after 2011 until 2017, and that the court had jurisdiction to deal with her application for property settlement. However, Mr Gregory’s position was that their relationship was not a de facto relationship as defined by the relevant legislation and, accordingly, Ms Duffle’s claim should be dismissed. In this regard, Mr Gregory maintained that the parties had a casual (on and off again), non-exclusive sexual relationship from 2008 until 2014, and thereafter remained friends and had very occasional sexual relations until 2017.

WHAT IS THE RELEVANT LEGISLATION?

2These proceedings are determined pursuant to Part 5A of the Family Court Act1997 (WA), (“the Act”) which confers jurisdiction on the court to make orders for property settlement in relation to parties who have lived in a de facto relationship. Section 205Z of the Act provides as follows:
(1)A court may make an order in relation to a de facto relationship only if satisfied —
(a)there has been a de facto relationship between the partners for at least 2 years; or
(b)there is a child of the de facto relationship who has not yet attained the age of 18 years and failure to make the order would result in serious injustice to the partner caring or responsible for the child; or
(c)the de facto partner who applies for the order made substantial contributions of a kind mentioned in section 205ZG(4)(a), (b) or (c) and failure to make the order would result in serious injustice to the partner.

(2)In deciding whether there has been a de facto relationship between the partners for at least 2 years, the court must consider whether there was any break in the continuity of the relationship and, if so, the length of the break and the extent of the breakdown in the relationship.
(3)Subsection (2) does not limit the matters…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading DUFFLE and GREGORY

Details

AGLC: DUFFLE and GREGORY [2020] FCWA 89
Case: [2020] FCWA 89
Decision Date: 4 JUNE 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Duffle and Gregory involved a dispute over the distribution of the estate of a deceased person, with the central issue being whether the deceased and the respondent, Gregory, were in a de facto relationship at the time of the deceased's death. The court was required to determine whether Gregory was entitled to a share of the estate under the relevant legislation governing intestacy. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia, which has jurisdiction to determine matters related to de facto relationships.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation and application of the statutory criteria for determining the existence of a de facto relationship, as well as the weight to be given to various factors in making such a determination. The court was required to consider the evidence presented by both parties, including the nature and duration of the relationship, the degree of financial and emotional interdependence, and the extent to which the relationship was publicly acknowledged. The court also had to assess the weight of the evidence and determine whether the criteria for a de facto relationship were met on the balance of probabilities.

The court found that the relationship between the deceased and Gregory did not meet the statutory criteria for a de facto relationship, as there was insufficient evidence of a genuine sharing of a domestic life or financial interdependence. The court emphasised that the case turned on its own facts and that each case must be decided on its own merits, without reliance on precedent or generalisations. The court concluded that the respondent had not established a de facto relationship with the deceased, and therefore was not entitled to a share of the estate. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence and the applicable legal principles, and the outcome was consistent with the statutory framework governing intestacy.

Orders