Legal Research
Cases
Hayes & Eddington (No 3)

Hayes & Eddington (No 3)

Case [2014] FamCA 336 22 May 2014

Statutory Construction

Family Law

Civil Procedure

Type to search within this case.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HAYES & EDDINGTON (NO. 3)

[2014] FamCA 336

FAMILY LAW – JURISDICTION – the applicant deposed that she and the deceased respondent were in a de facto relationship which concluded in June 2012 – the deceased respondent deposed that no such relationship ever existed – the Executors of the deceased respondent seek dismissal of the proceedings claiming the Court lacked jurisdiction as the alleged relationship has not broken down

FAMILY LAW – JURISDICTION – proceedings were commenced without jurisdiction whether an amended application could cure that underlying defect – As the jurisdictional facts were not in place at the time the proceedings were commenced the amended application did not cure the underlying jurisdictional defect – the proceedings are dismissed

Commonwealth Powers (De Facto Relationships Act) 2004 (Vic)
Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act 2008 (Cth)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Relationships Act 2008 (Vic)

Norton v Locke [2013] FamCAFC 202
Yunghanns & Ors v Yunghanns & Ors; Yunghanns (1999) FLC 92-836
Pelechowski v Registrar (1999) 198 CLR 435
In the Marriage of Strelys and Strelys (Executor) (1988) FLC 91-961
Woolley v Woolley (1980) FLC 90-900
Good v Good (1982) FLC 91-249
Hedley v Hedley [2009] FamCAFC 179
Whiteoak v Whiteoak (1980) FLC 837
Price v Underwood (2008) 39 Fam LR 614

APPLICANT:

Ms Hayes

RESPONDENT:

Mr E & Ms F (Legal Personal Representatives for the late Mr Eddington)

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

2949

2012

DATE DELIVERED:

22 May 2014

PLACE DELIVERED:

Hobart

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Benjamin J

HEARING DATE:

24 & 25 March 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr St John SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

CE Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Bartfeld QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Glezer Lanteri & Associates

Orders

The proceedings commenced by or on behalf of Ms Hayes on 4 April 2012 (as amended by an amended application filed 1 November 2012) are dismissed.
All other extant applications (other than costs) are dismissed.
Any costs applications be made in accordance with the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
After twenty eight (28) days from the date of these orders all subpoenaed documents be returned to the persons or institutions from which they emanated and all exhibits are returned to the person or persons who tendered the same.

IT IS CERTIFIED

Pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage Senior Counsel to attend.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Hayes & Eddington (No.3) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT HOBART

FILE NUMBER: MLC 2949 of 2012

Ms Hayes

Applicant

And

Mr E & Ms F (as Legal Personal Representatives of the Estate of the late Mr Eddington)

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

These are the reasons upon which orders are to be made dismissing the property and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hayes & Eddington (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Hayes & Eddington (No 3) [2014] FamCA 336
Case: [2014] FamCA 336
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Hayes commenced proceedings in the Family Court of Australia against the late Mr Eddington, seeking property and maintenance orders on the basis of a de facto relationship. The Executors of Mr Eddington's estate sought the dismissal of these proceedings, arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction because no de facto relationship existed, and therefore, no breakdown of such a relationship had occurred at the time proceedings were initiated.

The Court was required to determine two primary jurisdictional issues. Firstly, whether the evidence, when analysed at the time of the initial application in April 2012, established that a de facto relationship existed and had broken down. Secondly, if the relationship had not broken down by April 2012, whether the filing of an amended application in November 2012, which asserted a breakdown in June 2012, could cure the initial jurisdictional defect.

The Court reasoned that the jurisdiction of the Family Court under Part VIIIAB of the Family Law Act 1975 is founded on the existence of a de facto relationship and its subsequent breakdown. Applying the principles from cases such as *Norton v Locke*, the Court held that jurisdictional facts must be in place at the commencement of proceedings. As the evidence did not establish a de facto relationship or its breakdown as at April 2012, the initial application was jurisdictionally flawed. The Court further determined that the amended application filed in November 2012, which sought to assert a breakdown in June 2012, could not cure this fundamental, underlying jurisdictional defect that existed at the time the proceedings were first commenced.

Consequently, the Court ordered the dismissal of Ms Hayes' property and maintenance proceedings, along with all other extant applications, save for costs. The Court also made orders regarding the return of subpoenaed documents and exhibits.

Orders