Haight and Balog

[2017] FCCA 1192

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HAIGHT & BALOG [2017] FCCA 1192

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – De facto relationship – whether the Court is satisfied pursuant to s.90SM(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that it would be just and equitable to make an Order altering the parties’ interests in property – held not satisfied pursuant to s.90SM(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.72, 79, 90SM

Cases cited:

Bevan and Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116

Chapman and Chapman [2014] FamCAFC 91

Fielding and Nichol [2014] FCWA 77

Paxton and Paxton [2016] FCCA 1689

Scott and Danton [2014] FamCAFC 203

Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108

Applicant: MS HAIGHT

Respondent: MR BALOG

File Number: DGC 1431 of 2016

Judgment of: Judge Jones

Hearing date: 26 April 2017

Date of Last Submission: 26 April 2017

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 10 July 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Buchanan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Nicholson

Solicitors for the Respondent: Davison Family Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The application filed on 13 May 2016 for an alteration in the property interests of the parties under s.90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Haight & Balog is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

DGC 1431 of 2016

MS HAIGHT

Applicant

And

MR BALOG

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This decision concerns an application by the Applicant for an alteration of the property interests between the Applicant and the Respondent following the breakdown of their de facto relationship. Specifically, the Applicant seeks an Order that she receive a payment equivalent to 40% from the net proceeds of sale of a property purchased in the Respondent’s name. This property is situated at Property A(omitted) (“Property A”). There is no agreement on the value of the Property A property. Neither party has provided the Court with an independent expert valuation of the Property A property. In his financial statement filed on 11 April 2017, the Respondent values the Property A property at $500,000.00 and identifies the mortgage over that property at $408,432.00.

2. The Respondent contends that it would not be just and equitable to make any Orders altering the parties’ property interests. The Respondent argues that, in the event that the Court is satisfied that it would be just and equitable to make Orders altering the parties’ property interests, an appropriate Order in the circumstances is not to make any adjustment to the interests of the parties in property.

3. In determining this matter I have had regard to all of the documents the Applicant and Respondent stated that they relied on at trial, including exhibits tendered by each of them.

Section 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

1. In property settlement proceedings, after the breakdown of a de facto relationship, the Court may make such Orders as it considers appropriate altering…