Houli and Laidler

[2012] FMCAfam 636

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HOULI & LAIDLER [2012] FMCAfam 636

FAMILY LAW – Property – De Facto relationship – jurisdiction – characterisation of the relationship – respondent denies de facto relationship – inter alia – on the basis that the parties maintained separate residences.

Family Law Act 1975, ss.4AA, 90RD(1), 90SB, 90SM
Marriage Act 1961

FO v HAF [2006] QCA 555
Baker & Landon [2010] FMCAfam 280

Applicant: MS HOULI

Respondent: MR LAIDLER

File Number: LEC 493 of 2010

Judgment of: Demack FM

Hearing dates: 11 & 17 February 2011

Date of Last Submission: 17 February 2011

Delivered at: Lismore

Delivered on: 28 June 2012

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Gordon

Solicitors for the Applicant: BL Crane & Associates

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Priestley

Solicitors for the Respondent: Family Law Solutions

ORDERS

1. That it is declared that pursuant to s.90RD (1) of the Family Law Act 1975 that a de facto relationship existed between the Applicant and the Respondent in the State of New South Wales between 2001 and 2009.

2. That this matter be adjourned for directions to 9.30am on 13 August 2012 in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia at Lismore.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT LISMORE

LEC 493 of 2010

MS HOULI

Applicant

And

MR LAIDLER

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Between 2001 and mid 2009, Ms Houli and Mr Laidler were in a relationship.  Ms Houli says it was a de facto relationship as defined by the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”).  Mr Laidler says it was not.

The application and the response

1. The initiating application filed by Ms Houli on 7 October 2010 sought interim and final orders with respect to property. Relevantly, she sought a declaration pursuant to s.90RD(1) of the Act that a de facto relationship existed between her and Mr Laidler between mid to late 2001 until 27 July 2009.  She sought consequential orders adjusting their property interests.

2. Mr Laidler responded on 9 December 2019 seeking a declaration, on both an interim and final basis, under the same section that a de facto relationship never existed and that the initiating application otherwise be dismissed and an order for costs.

3. This matter was listed as a discrete issue for determination.

4. It must be noted that the only issue which was argued at this time was whether a de facto relationship existed. Issues such as length of the relationship or whether substantial contributions were made which might in other circumstances enliven the courts jurisdiction (per s.90SB (a) and (c)) were not argued before me.

The evidence and credibility of the parties

1. The Ms Houli relied upon affidavits and financial statement by herself, friends, Ms H, Mr B, Ms F and Ms S and the former boyfriend of her daughter [D], Mr W.  Mr B was not required for cross examination; the others were.