Hale and Harrison

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Hale and Mr Harrison sought to have consent orders made regarding the division of property and parenting arrangements following the conclusion of their de facto relationship. The parties had cohabited from approximately 1998 until their separation in April 2009, and had four children together.

The court was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to make the orders, given that the application was filed outside the usual two-year time limit for property settlement applications after separation. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether to grant leave to proceed based on hardship, and crucially, whether the proposed consent orders were "just and equitable" as required by the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Justice Cronin found that jurisdiction was established by the parties' separation in April 2009, but noted the application was out of time. While accepting there were reasons for the delay, the court could not ascertain any basis for hardship to justify granting leave to proceed. Most significantly, the court found that the proposed consent orders, which involved the sale of a property with modest equity and an equal division of the proceeds, were not just and equitable. This conclusion was based on the fact that Ms Hale was obligated to repay a loan to her mother from her share, while Mr Harrison appeared to have received a substantial inheritance after separation, improving his financial position. The court also noted that Ms Hale herself did not believe the proposed orders were fair.

Consequently, the application for consent orders was refused, and the application was dismissed.