Hake and Lawford & Ors

This matter concerned a property settlement application brought by the applicant against the first respondent, with the second and third respondents also named. The applicant and first respondent had been in a de facto relationship for approximately 17 years. The court was required to determine a just and equitable division of the parties' property.

The primary legal issues before the court were to declare the existence and duration of the de facto relationship, and to make orders for the division of property and the discharge of debts. The court also considered the impact of family violence on the relationship and the proposed property division.

Wilson J found that a de facto relationship existed between the applicant and the first respondent from approximately 2002 to September 2019. The court noted that documentary evidence of contributions was poor and that the application was undefended by the first respondent, who provided no contradicting version of events. The applicant proposed a division of assets whereby she would receive 65% and the first respondent 35%. The court accepted this proposed division as just and equitable, taking into account the evidence of family violence.

The court made orders including granting leave for the applicant to proceed on an undefended basis, discharging previous orders, and declaring the de facto relationship. The C Street property was to remain on the market for sale, with the applicant having conduct of the sale. The proceeds were to be applied to selling costs, conveyancing costs, the ANZ mortgage, and then distributed with $210,000 to Ms F Lawford, followed by 65% of the remaining balance to the applicant and 35% to the first respondent. The first respondent was ordered to withdraw any caveats lodged over the property, with the applicant authorised to execute documents for removal if he failed to do so. The applicant was granted sole occupation of the C Street property pending sale, responsible for rates and outgoings, while the first respondent was to pay $1,500 per month towards the mortgage. The applicant was to receive a specific motor vehicle, and each party was to retain other assets and chattels in their possession. The applicant was to indemnify the first respondent for debts in her sole name, and the first respondent was to indemnify the applicant for specific debts owed to the second and third respondents, and debts in his sole name. Finally, the first respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs.