FO (plaintiff/respondent) v HAF (defendant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 4280 of 2006 SC No 2744 of 2004
DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
19 December 2006
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
8 November 2006
JUDGES:
McMurdo P, Keane JA and White J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:
Appeal allowed1.
Judgment varied by setting aside paragraphs 2 and 3 of the orders of 28 April 2006 and ordering in lieu that: 2.
"2. The respondent receive 70 per cent and the appellant 30 per cent of the net proceeds of sale derived by the operation of paragraph 1 hereof. 3. The appellant shall keep the respondent indemnified against the liabilities of the parties referred to in paragraph 28 of the reasons for judgment of the learned trial judge save for the liabilities to be discharged by the operation of paragraph 1 hereof."
The respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal
3.
CATCHWORDS:
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS - ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS - GENERALLY - Part 19 Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) proceedings - dispute over date at which relationship became a "de facto relationship" under the Act - dispute over value of property which each party brought to joint property pool at commencement of relationship - whether learned trial judge erred
C J Forrest, with C R Dick, for the appellant T L Kirk SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Primrose Couper Cronin Rudkin for the appellant Evans & Company Family Lawyers for the respondent
McMURDO P: I agree with Keane JA.
KEANE JA: The respondent was born on 4 February 1967. The appellant was born on 5 November 1947. Each had previously been married. They began seeing each other in 1997, and a sexual relationship developed although they lived and worked in different cities. The respondent became pregnant…
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 FO v HAF
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
FO v HAF [2006] QCA 555
Case
[2006] QCA 555
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
FO v HAF is a decision from the Queensland Court of Appeal concerning the adjustment of property interests in a de facto relationship under the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld). The parties, FO and HAF, were in a de facto relationship from 2001 until 2006. The primary dispute was over the date the relationship became a de facto relationship under the Act and the value of the property each party brought to the joint property pool at the commencement of the relationship. The appeal centred on whether the trial judge had erred in determining these issues.
The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge correctly identified the commencement date of the de facto relationship, and if the value of the property each party brought to the relationship was accurately assessed. The court considered whether the trial judge appropriately applied relevant sections of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), such as sections 260, 261, 286, 291, 292, and 305. Additionally, the court examined the trial judge’s interpretation of the concept of a "joint property pool" and the significance of contributions to that pool.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in setting the commencement date of the de facto relationship. The court also held that the trial judge had incorrectly assessed the value of the property each party brought to the relationship. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment was varied to reflect a 70/30 split of the net proceeds of the sale of the property in favour of the respondent, HAF. Furthermore, the court ordered that the appellant, FO, would indemnify the respondent against certain liabilities, with the exception of those addressed in the primary judgment. The respondent was also ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed1.
Judgment varied by setting aside paragraphs 2 and 3 of the orders of 28 April 2006 and ordering in lieu that: 2.
"2. The respondent receive 70 per cent and the appellant 30 per cent of the net proceeds of sale derived by the operation of paragraph 1 hereof.
3. The appellant shall keep the respondent indemnified against the liabilities of the parties referred to in paragraph 28 of the reasons for judgment of the learned trial judge save for the liabilities to be discharged by the operation of paragraph 1 hereof."
The respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal