FLC v AJO (No 2)

In the case of FLC v AJO (No 2), the applicant, FLC, sought a Property Adjustment Order under Part 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), following the end of a lengthy de facto relationship with the respondent, AJO. FLC contended that AJO had made substantial contributions to the pool of assets during the relationship, but that he had also made significant financial and non-financial contributions. The central issue before the court was to determine what is just and equitable in making the property adjustment order, taking into account the contributions of both parties.

The legal issues the court had to decide included the nature and extent of the contributions made by both parties to the relationship and the pool of assets, the duration of the relationship, and the principles that should guide the court in making a just and equitable property adjustment order. The court considered various factors, such as the length and nature of the relationship, the contributions made by both parties, and the overall fairness and justice of the outcome.

In reaching its decision, the court held that AJO should pay FLC the sum of $7,735.30 by way of property adjustment. The court also ordered that if AJO failed to make the payment in full by the specified date, the property situated at Edgar St, Bungalow, would vest in a trustee to be agreed by the parties, or, failing agreement, a trustee nominated by the President of the Queensland Law Society. The trustee would then sell the property and distribute the net proceeds, deducting costs and paying the amount owed to FLC. The court further restrained AJO from encumbering the property without the written consent of FLC, pending the payment.

The final orders included the payment of $7,735.30 to FLC by AJO by 23 July 2013, the vesting of the property in a trustee and the distribution of the net proceeds if the payment was not made, and the restraint on AJO from encumbering the property without FLC's written consent. The parties were otherwise to retain their respective real and personal property free of all claims from each other. The court also granted liberty to apply on the giving of two days notice in writing on the form of order and as to costs.