Jennings and Reeves (No.2)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JENNINGS & REEVES (No.2) [2018] FCCA 3601

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Property.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 pt.VIIIAB, ss.4AA, 44(6), 75(2), 90SF, 90SM, 106B

Evidence Act 1995 s.50
Legal Profession Act 2004 s.14

Cases cited:

Re F Litigants in Person in Person Guidelines (2001) FLC 93-072

Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40

Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52
Robb & Robb (1995) FLC 92-555
Mayne & Mayne [2011] FamCAFC 192
Aon Risk Services & Australian National University [2009] HCA 27
Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52
Kowaliw & Kowaliw (1981) FLC 91-092

Applicant: MR JENNINGS

Respondent: MS REEVES

File Number: PAC 767 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Harman

Hearing date: 5 November 2018

Date of Last Submission: 5 November 2018

Delivered at: Parramatta

Delivered on: 5 November 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Oliak of Counsel

No appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

ORDERS

1. All outstanding Applications and Responses are withdrawn and dismissed and all issues are removed from the list of matters awaiting hearing.

2. Upon the expiration of the Appeal period and in the event that no appeal is lodged that all exhibits then be returned to the party who tendered same and that all material produced on subpoena or pursuant to section 69ZW of the Family Law Act 1975 be returned to the person or organisation who produced same or securely destroyed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Jennings & Reeves (No.2) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 767 of 2014

MR JENNINGS

Applicant

And

MS REEVES

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These proceedings relate to issues of property adjustment between the parties under Part VIIIAB of the Family Law Act 1975. 

2. The parties to the proceedings are Mr Jennings, the Applicant, and Ms Reeves, the Respondent.

3. There is no controversy that the parties lived together in a de facto relationship as defined in section 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975 for a period of time. There is some controversy as to when the relationship ended. However, that controversy need not trouble the Court at this point.

4. The matter is undefended, an issue to which I will return shortly. 

5. The relationship is agreed to have commenced on or about [date] 2006.  The Applicant submits that the relationship concluded on 26 February 2012. The Respondent alleges an earlier date, by some months. 

6. By reference to the above dates, it may appear to the casual observer that the proceedings must be outside of the court’s jurisdiction. One would think that if the relationship is alleged to have concluded 26 February 2012, the latest of the two dates alleged, that the matter must be out of time when these proceedings are now dealt with in November 2018. Alas, that is not so. The proceedings were commenced by an Application Initiating Proceedings filed on 21 February 2014, and thus, on the Applicant’s allegation, which…