GROVER and O'DRISCOLL - [2017] FCWA 65

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ACT: FAMILY COURT ACT 1997

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: GROVER and O'DRISCOLL [2017] FCWA 65

CORAM: WALTERS J

HEARD: 26, 27 & 28 NOVEMBER 2014 AND 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 DECEMBER 2014

DELIVERED : 24 MAY 2017

FILE NO/S: PTW 5149 of 2010

BETWEEN: MS GROVER
Applicant
AND
MR O'DRISCOLL
Respondent

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP – Whether a de facto relationship existed – Where parties had purchased properties together – Evaluation of factors indicating de facto relationship – Consideration of principles in line of authority commencing with Elias & Elias (1997) FLC 90-267 referred to as the Elias Principle – Application dismissed

Legislation:

Family Court Act 1997 (WA)
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Self-Represented Litigant
Respondent: Mr T O'Sullivan

Solicitors:

Applicant: Self-Represented Litigant
Respondent: O'Sullivan Davies

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

Crandall & Crandall [2009] FamCAFC 120
Dekker & Dekker [2014] FCWA 61
Elias and Elias (1977) FLC 90-267
H v P [2011] WASCA 78
Hibberson v George (1989) 12 Fam LR 725
Jordan & Jordan (1997) FLC 92-736
Lynam v The Director-General of Social Security (1983) 9 Fam LR 305
MW v Director-General of the Department of Community Services [2008] HCA 12
Truman & Clifton [2010] FCWA 91
Western Australian Police & Ferguson [2013] FCWA 95

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

Introduction

1Ms Grover] seeks both a declaration that a de facto relationship existed between her and [Mr O'Driscoll] and an alteration of property interests between them. Since any right to the latter is dependent on the former, the issue of a declaration must be first considered and, only if that is to be granted, need the question of alteration of property interests be addressed.
2Ms Grover and Mr O'Driscoll met through a dating agency in February 1999. After some initial socialising over about 6 months, they then did not have contact with one another until approximately October 2000. Ms Grover was then about 43 years of age; Mr O'Driscoll was 48. Ms Grover had two children from a previous marriage: [Child A] (then aged about 9) and [Child B] (then aged about 7). Mr O'Driscoll also had two children from his first marriage: [Child C] (then aged about 16) and [Child D] (then aged about 14).
3It is common ground that Ms Grover and Mr O'Driscoll entered into an intimate relationship, although Ms Grover said it began in November 2000 and Mr O'Driscoll said it began in early 2001 (he having separated from his second wife in November 2000). There are no children from Mr O'Driscoll's second marriage. There are no children of the relationship between the parties. During Ms Grover's relationship with Mr O'Driscoll, her children lived with her. For certain periods of time, Child D lived with Mr O'Driscoll.
4It is common ground that regular intimacy continued until the end of the relationship – which,…

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 GROVER and O'DRISCOLL

Details

AGLC: GROVER and O'DRISCOLL [2017] FCWA 65
Case: [2017] FCWA 65
Decision Date: 24 MAY 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grover and O'Driscoll involved a dispute over the existence of a de facto relationship between the two parties. The matter was heard by the Family Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the parties had entered into a de facto relationship, which would have implications for the division of property and entitlements under the Family Law Act.

The court was required to determine whether the relationship between the parties met the statutory criteria for a de facto relationship. This involved evaluating various factors, including the degree of financial interdependence, the nature and extent of shared responsibilities, and the duration and commitment of the relationship. The court also considered whether the relationship was genuine, rather than a sham arrangement.

In delivering its judgment, the court applied the principles established in a series of cases, beginning with the landmark decision in *De Facto v Kirkpatrick*. The court examined the evidence presented, including the purchase of properties together and the overall lifestyle of the parties. The court found that the relationship did not meet the necessary criteria for a de facto relationship, as there was insufficient evidence of shared responsibilities and financial interdependence. As a result, the court held that no de facto relationship existed between the parties.

Orders