Hahn & Palomo

[2021] FedCFamC2F 73

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISON 2)

Hahn & Palomo [2021] FedCFamC2F 73

File number(s):

MLC 437 of 2019

Judgment of:

JUDGE BENDER

Date of judgment:

22 September 2021

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – property – the de facto Husband’s Application for property orders pursuant to s90SM (4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – where the Respondent de facto Wife contends the parties kept their finances entirely separate and this is a matter to which s90SM (3) of the Act applies as it is not just and equitable to make any orders adjusting the parties’ property interests and seeks the de facto Husband’s Application be dismissed.

HELD – the de facto Husband’s Application be dismissed.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) ss 90SM, 90SM (3), 90SM (4)

Cases cited:

Stanford v Stanford [2012] 247 CLR 108

Bevan v Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116
Oamra & Williams [2021] FamCAFC 117
Bevan v Bevan(No 2) [2014] FamCAFC 19

Division:

Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs:

88

Date of last submission/s:

5 August 2021

Date of hearing:

4-5 August 2021

Place:

Melbourne

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr James

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Grice Legal

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Nehmy

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Kenna Teasdale Lawyers

ORDERS

MLC 437 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MR HAHN

Applicant

AND:

MS PALOMO

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE BENDER
DATE OF ORDER:	22 SEPTEMBER 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Applicant’s Amended Application filed 13 July 2021 be dismissed.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Hahn & Palomo has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE BENDER:

INTRODUCTION

1. Mr Hahn (“the Applicant”) and Ms Palomo (“the Respondent”) were in a de facto relationship from October 2012 (as is the Applicant’s evidence) or February 2013 (as is the Respondent’s evidence) to 30 September 2018.

2. The Respondent’s evidence is there was a break in their de facto relationship between 2 May 2016 and July 2017. During this period the parties lived in separate households but continued to see each other and spend time in each other’s homes.

3. The Applicant’s evidence is that whilst the parties maintained separate homes during this period, from approximately October 2016 onwards they…