F, BA v D, BJ

In the matter of F, BA v D, BJ, the parties were involved in a domestic partnership that lasted for six years, from 2002 until August 2008. The relationship was marked by the acquisition of a jointly owned property in May 2006, with the plaintiff making a significant financial contribution in the form of a deposit and mortgage payments. After the relationship ended, the defendant continued to reside in the property without contributing to the mortgage or rent, leading the plaintiff to seek an adjustment in his favour. The defendant did not contest the proceedings, resulting in the plaintiff being the sole party to present evidence. The plaintiff argued that the defendant should be credited with half the net proceeds from the sale of the property, subject to certain adjustments for maintenance and occupation costs.

The court was tasked with determining the just and equitable division of the property between the parties, specifically focusing on the net proceeds from the sale of the jointly owned property. The plaintiff argued for adjustments to account for the defendant's failure to contribute to maintenance and occupation costs of the property post-separation. The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence as truthful and reliable, finding that the relationship was indeed a domestic partnership as defined under the relevant Act. The court acknowledged that while both parties had contributed equally to the property and expenses during the relationship, the plaintiff's financial contributions post-separation outweighed any contributions made by the defendant. The court also noted the lack of evidence regarding the payment of council rates and that no allowance was made for future mortgage payments or rates.

The court concluded that it was just and equitable to divide the net proceeds from the sale of the property equally between the parties, subject to specific adjustments. These adjustments included the sum of $4,514.79 for a Telstra account, $5,112.30 for a joint visa card, $769.64 for half the maintenance costs, and $5,600 for half the notional occupation rent. The court confirmed the order for the property to be sold, with the net proceeds divided equally between the parties, after applying these adjustments. The final orders were made pursuant to section 10(2)(b) of the Act, ensuring a fair distribution of the property in light of the circumstances and contributions of the parties.