Hancock v Leech

The applicants, Hancock and Leech, were in a de facto relationship and jointly owned a property. Upon the termination of their relationship, Hancock sought an adjustment of their interests in the property. Leech did not participate in the proceedings. Hancock applied for the relief on an ex parte basis. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court. The primary legal issue was whether the court could proceed with the application in the absence of the second party. A secondary issue was whether, even if the court proceeded, it could make an order that resulted in the sale of the property.

The court held that it could proceed in the absence of the second party. It found that the absence of the second party was not fatal to the court's jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court also held that it could make an order that resulted in the sale of the property, even though this was contrary to the wishes of the second party. The court found that it was not bound by the wishes of the second party, as it was not present to advocate for them. The court considered that the adjustment of interests in the property was just and equitable, given the contributions of both parties during the relationship.

The court ordered that the property be sold and the proceeds divided between the parties. It also ordered that the costs of the application be borne equally by both parties. The court found that the absence of the second party did not affect its ability to make an order that was just and equitable. The court held that it was not necessary for the second party to be present to advocate for their interests, as the court could make an order based on the evidence presented by the first party. The court also held that it was not bound by the wishes of the second party, as it was not present to advocate for them.