Harriott and Arena

[2013] FCCA 1604

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HARRIOTT & ARENA [2013] FCCA 1604

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – De Facto relationships – where application commenced in New South Wales – where parties not ordinarily resident in New South Wales during at least a third of the relationship – where the relationship of the parties took place almost entirely in (country omitted) – where the geographical requirement under Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s.90SK not satisfied.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.4AA, 90SK, 90SL, 90SM

Cases cited:
Webb & Douglas [2012] FMCAfam 1049

Applicant: MS HARRIOTT

Respondent: MR ARENA

File Number: SYC 1615 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Scarlett

Hearing date: 23 September 2013

Date of Last Submission: 23 September 2013

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 16 October 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Givney

Solicitors for the Applicant: Williams The Law Firm

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Blackah

Solicitors for the Respondent: Gibsons Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The Application filed on 27 March 2013 is dismissed.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYC 1615 of 2013

MS HARRIOTT

Applicant

And

MR ARENA

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

1. This is an argument about jurisdiction. The Respondent seeks summary dismissal of the Applicant’s Application for property orders under s.90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) on the basis that the geographical requirement under s.90SK has not been met. The Respondent also seeks a declaration that the parties were not in a de facto relationship within the meaning of s.90SK(1) of the Act.

Background

1. The parties met at the (omitted) in Sydney on (omitted) 1999. The Respondent had been living in (country omitted) for a number of years and at the time the parties met was employed as the (omitted) of a (omitted) in (country omitted).

2. The parties spent some time together at (omitted) in New South Wales, where the Respondent owned a property. The Respondent returned to (country omitted).

3. The Applicant visited (country omitted) in (omitted) 1999 and again in (omitted) of that year. She travelled to (country omitted) in (omitted) 2000 and they commenced living together.

4. In October of that year the Respondent was advised by his employer that his contract had been terminated. The (omitted) was placed in receivership in December. The parties negotiated a takeover of the (omitted) business. The Applicant says that the Respondent received 50% of the business in lieu of accrued wages and entitlements and she obtained 50% by paying $30,000.00 out of the proceeds of sale of her home.

5. In 2003 the parties purchased a property at Property D for $120,000.00. The Applicant paid $30,000.00 toward that purchase. They also purchased another property, for which they borrowed the money.

6. The parties separated in December 2011.

Issue

1. The issue is whether the Court has jurisdiction to make the order under s.90SM that the Applicant seeks. To establish jurisdiction, the Applicant must…