FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Harrington & Lanza [2024] FedCFamC2F 1121
File number(s): HBC 183 of 2024 Judgment of: JUDGE TAGLIERI Date of judgment: 16 August 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – de facto relationship – threshold issue – where respondent seeks a declaration pursuant to s 90RD of the Family Law Act 1975 that a de facto relationship never existed – applicant asserts that a de facto relationship existed – declaration that de facto relationship existed Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AA, 90RD, 90SM Cases cited: Baden & Packwood [2021] FedCFamC2F 204
Crowley & Pappas [2013] FamCA 783
Jonah & White [2011] FamCA 221; 258 FLR 236
Moby & Schulter [2010] FamCA 748; (2010) FLC 93-447
Tomson & MacLaren [2021] FamCA 620
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 64 Date of hearing: 4 July 2024 Place: Hobart The Applicant: In person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Trezise Solicitors for the Respondent: Butler, McIntyre & Butler ORDERS
HBC 183 of 2024 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MS HARRINGTON
Applicant
AND: MR LANZA
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE TAGLIERI
DATE OF ORDER:
16 AUGUST 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 90RD(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) there is a declaration that a de facto relationship existed between the parties, Ms Harrington and Mr Lanza.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE TAGLIERI
By Application filed 1 March 2024, Ms Harrington (“the applicant”) seeks orders pursuant to s 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) for adjustment of property interests between herself and Mr Lanza (“the respondent”). The parties agree that they were in a relationship of some sort from around late 2021 until sometime in early 2023 but there is no agreement as to the nature or specific duration of the relationship.
By his Response filed 20 March 2024, the respondent seeks an order for a declaration pursuant to s 90RD of the Act that a de facto relationship never existed and, consequently, that the Application filed 1 March 2024 be dismissed.
The proceedings were listed for the Court to determine first and discretely whether…
Continue reading Harrington & Lanza
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Harrington & Lanza [2024] FedCFamC2F 1121
- Case
- [2024] FedCFamC2F 1121
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues central to this case were whether the court could find, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms Harrington and Mr Lanza were in a de facto relationship as defined under section 90AA of the Family Law Act 1975. The court examined various factors, including the nature and duration of the relationship, the degree of financial dependence between the parties, and the extent to which their lives were shared in a domestic context. The court considered evidence from both parties and expert witnesses, evaluating whether the relationship met the requirements for a de facto relationship under the statute.
In its judgment, the court found that the evidence demonstrated that Ms Harrington and Mr Lanza were in a de facto relationship. The court concluded that the parties shared a domestic relationship, had a degree of financial interdependence, and exhibited a level of commitment that met the statutory criteria. Judge Tagliari determined that the applicant's arguments did not sufficiently rebut the respondent's evidence, leading to the conclusion that a de facto relationship did exist. Consequently, the court made a declaration that a de facto relationship existed between Ms Harrington and Mr Lanza under section 90RD(1) of the Family Law Act 1975. The form of the order is subject to review and potential amendment as per the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Orders
Orders of the court
HBC 183 of 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:
MS HARRINGTON
Applicant
AND:
MR LANZA
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE TAGLIERI
DATE OF ORDER:
16 AUGUST 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Pursuant to s 90RD(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) there is a declaration that a de facto relationship existed between the parties, Ms Harrington and Mr Lanza.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.