HARBROW & BOSTON

[2015] FCCA 1414

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HARBROW & BOSTON [2015] FCCA 1414

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Dispute as to whether or not the parties were in a de facto relationship – credit issues.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.4AA, 90RD

Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act2008 (Cth)

Moby & Schulter (2010) FLC 93-447
Sinclair v Whittaker (2013) FLC 93-550
Jonah & White [2011] FamCA 221

Applicant: MS HARBROW

Respondent: MR BOSTON

File Number: MLC 6495 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Harland

Hearing date: 8 April 2015

Date of Last Submission: 8 April 2015

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 28 May 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Jenkins

Solicitors for the Applicant: Ryan Carlise Thomas

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Moisidis

Solicitors for the Respondent: Michael Smith Barristers & Solicitors

ORDERS

1. That the applicant’s initiating application filed on 24 July 2014 be dismissed.

2. That within 7 days of the date of these orders the applicant do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to remove caveats lodged on the titles of Property D and 3 Property E at her own expense.

3. Pursuant to s.90RD of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) the Court declares that the parties were not in a de facto relationship.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 6495 of 2014

MS HARBROW

Applicant

And

MR BOSTON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a dispute about whether or not the parties were in a de facto relationship. The facts in this case are unusual. As I expressed during the course of submissions it is also a case where I had difficulties with aspects of both parties’ evidence. The supporting witnesses were largely of little assistance. All of this is particularly problematic in a case like this.

2. I have not dealt with all aspects of the parties’ evidence, as some material in both parties’ affidavits were not relevant to the threshold issue. It is unnecessary to deal with the parties’ evidence with respect to 2014 because on the applicant’s case, the relationship ended in 2014.

3. The applicant seeks a property division. This hearing was focused on the threshold issue of whether or not the parties were in a de facto relationship.

4. The applicant was born in Ethiopia. The respondent was also born in Ethiopia.

5. The parties have one child [X] born [omitted] 2007.

Circumstances of the parties meeting and relationship before they travelled to Ethiopia

1. The respondent is a [occupation omitted]. The parties met in 2005 when the applicant started [omitted]. The applicant says they started a relationship in June 2006 when she says she moved into the respondent’s home at Property D, (“Property D”).

2. The applicant says she decided to move closer to where the respondent lived and rented a property at [address omitted] for 12 months from June 2005 to June…