FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| HERFORD & BERKE (NO. 2) | [2019] FamCAFC 182 |
| FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – DE FACTO RELATONSHIP – Declaration that the de facto relationship finally broke down before 1 March 2009 – Application for property settlement orders dismissed – Where the parties lived under the same roof until November 2008 – Where the parties agreed that up until this point they were living in a de facto relationship –Where there is contention as to whether the parties’ de facto relationship continued after this point up until the cessation of the relationship in 2015 – Where his Honour considered the nature and character of the relationship and came to the conclusion that the relationship had changed after November 2008 and a de facto relationship no longer existed – Where the challenge as to weight is not made out – Where the conclusion was open to his Honour – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs made. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AA, 90SM(1), (3) and (4) Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act 2008 (Cth) ss 2, 86 and 86A |
| Cadman & Hallett (2014) FLC 93-603; [2014] FamCAFC 142 Crick & Bennett (2018) FLC 93-832; [2018] FamCAFC 68 Cuan & Kostelac (2017) FLC 93-801; [2017] FamCAFC 188 Fleming & Schmidt [2017] FamCAFC 12 Jonah & White (2012) FLC 93-522; [2012] FamCAFC 200 Jonah v White (2011) 45 Fam LR 460; [2011] FamCA 221 Lynam v Director-General of Social Security (1983) 52 ALR 128 Onslow & Onslow [2016] FamCAFC 7 Sha & Cham [2017] FamCAFC 161 Sinclair & Whittaker (2013) FLC 93-551; [2013] FamCAFC 129 |
| APPELLANT: | Ms Herford |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Berke |
| FILE NUMBER: | BRC | 3295 | of | 2017 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | NOA | 3 | of | 2019 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 24 October 2019 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Ainslie-Wallace, Ryan & Aldridge JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 18 September 2019 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Federal Circuit Court of Australia |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 5 December 2018 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2018] FCCA 3593 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: | Mr Coleman SC with Mr Flaherty |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: | Mullick & Associates |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Williams QC |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Hopgood Ganim Lawyers |
Orders
The appeal against the orders of Judge Jarrett made on 5 December 2018 is dismissed.
There be no order as to costs.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Herford & Berke has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
| THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT… |
Continue reading Herford & Berke (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Herford & Berke (No 2) [2019] FamCAFC 182
- Case
- [2019] FamCAFC 182
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of statutory provisions and the application of case law to the facts of the case. The appellants argued that the lower court had misapplied the law, leading to an unjust outcome. They contended that specific legal principles should have been applied differently, which would have resulted in a more favourable outcome for them. The court had to carefully examine the relevant statutory language and relevant case law to determine if the lower court's interpretation and application of the law were correct.
The court, after a thorough analysis of the relevant legal principles and the facts of the case, found that the lower court's interpretation and application of the law were sound. The court held that the lower court had correctly understood and applied the relevant statutory provisions and case law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs. The court's decision was based on a detailed examination of the legal arguments presented by both parties and a careful consideration of the relevant legal authorities.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal against the orders of Judge Jarrett made on 5 December 2018 is dismissed.
2.
There be no order as to costs.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
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.