JARROW & MANARD

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Judge Harman presided over proceedings between Ms Jarrow (Applicant) and Mr Manard (Respondent). The core of the dispute concerned the existence and duration of a de facto relationship between the parties, which was foundational to the Court’s jurisdiction to make property adjustment orders. Ms Jarrow alleged the existence of a de facto relationship, while Mr Manard contested this and other aspects of the proceedings, including the Court's jurisdiction. The hearing involved significant credibility issues and allegations of controlling and coercive family violence, with Ms Jarrow also seeking relief under section 114 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The primary legal issues before the Court were to determine whether a de facto relationship existed between Ms Jarrow and Mr Manard, and if so, when it commenced and concluded. This determination was crucial for establishing the Court's jurisdiction under section 90RD of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to make property orders. Additionally, the Court was required to consider allegations of family violence and the appropriate orders to be made in light of the parties' financial circumstances and the alleged disposal of assets. The Court also had to address the issue of costs, particularly in light of the parties' conduct during the proceedings and the successful establishment of Ms Jarrow's case.

Judge Harman found that a de facto relationship existed between the parties, commencing approximately in August 2003 and concluding on 10 June 2017. This finding was based on a comprehensive assessment of the factors outlined in section 4AA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the duration of the relationship (nearly 14 years), common residence, the existence of a sexual relationship, and a degree of financial interdependence, particularly in relation to the acquisition of property and the support of their two children. The Court accepted Ms Jarrow's evidence as more credible, especially concerning the personal aspects of the relationship and the allegations of coercive and controlling violence, which were found to be consistent with the sole ownership of assets by Mr Manard. The Court also noted a mutual commitment to a shared life, evidenced by their co-parenting and public declarations regarding property acquisition.

Consequently, the Court declared that the parties lived in a de facto relationship from August 2003 to 10 June 2017. Mr Manard was ordered to pay Ms Jarrow's costs fixed at $25,000 within 42 days, with these costs to be a charge upon his interest in a specific property. Mr Manard was also restrained from dealing with this property without Ms Jarrow's consent or leave of the Court, and was ordered to consent to a caveat being placed on the property. Further orders were made regarding the filing of amended applications, disclosure of financial documents, and the listing of the matter for a final hearing on 18 September 2020. Leave was also granted for Ms Jarrow to provide an affidavit to the Child Support Registrar to correct records concerning child care arrangements.