Harriott & Arena

In the case of Harriott & Arena, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia addressed an appeal concerning the property interests of parties to a de facto relationship under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The parties were involved in a de facto relationship and disputed the distribution of assets acquired during their relationship. The appeal centred on whether the appellant had made "substantial contributions in relation to the de facto relationship" in a participating jurisdiction, specifically New South Wales, as required by s 90SK(1)(b)(ii) of the Act.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had correctly interpreted the geographical requirement under s 90SK(1)(b)(ii) of the Family Law Act, and if the trial judge erred in excluding contributions made before the de facto relationship began from consideration. The appellant argued that her financial contributions, such as selling her home and making payments in Australia, should be considered as substantial contributions made in New South Wales. The respondent maintained that these contributions were made outside New South Wales and thus did not meet the jurisdictional requirement.

The court found that the trial judge erred in excluding the contributions made by the appellant before the relationship began from consideration. The Full Court held that the contributions made by the appellant at the commencement of the relationship, even if they occurred before the relationship officially began, should have been considered. The court determined that the trial judge's exclusion of these contributions from the analysis was a misapplication of the law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the order of the trial judge was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Federal Circuit Court for further directions.

The court also granted costs certificates to both parties, indicating that the Attorney General may authorise payments to both the appellant and the respondent for the costs incurred in relation to the appeal. This decision underscores the importance of accurately interpreting the jurisdictional requirements for making property orders in de facto relationships under the Family Law Act.