Hadfield & Walberts & Anor

The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning a de facto property settlement. The dispute centred on the duration of the de facto relationship between the applicant and the respondent, and the appropriate division of their non-superannuation assets, where the respondent had made substantially greater financial contributions.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the trial judge erred in determining the commencement date of the de facto relationship, and consequently, the length of the relationship, and whether the resulting division of assets, which favoured the respondent with 90% of the non-superannuation assets, was just and equitable.

The Court analysed the evidence presented regarding the commencement of the de facto relationship, considering factors such as cohabitation, the nature of the relationship, and the parties' intentions. It applied established principles of family law concerning the assessment of contributions and the determination of a just and equitable division of property in de facto relationships, taking into account both financial and non-financial contributions. The Court found that the trial judge's determination of the relationship's duration was not demonstrably wrong, and that the asset division reflected the significant disparity in financial contributions.

The appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the trial court were affirmed. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $150,480 within 60 days, with liberty to apply in default of compliance.