JENNINGS & HORRIGAN

The parties, Mr Jennings and Ms Horrigan, brought proceedings in the Family Court of Australia concerning the division of their property following the dissolution of their de facto relationship. The central dispute revolved around the date of separation, with the husband alleging the relationship ended in 2009 and the wife initially contending it concluded in 2002. This jurisdictional question was complicated by prior consent orders made in March 2011, which were later discharged on the basis that the Court lacked jurisdiction at that time. The wife subsequently conceded that the relationship ended after March 2009, leading to a conclusion that the Court did possess jurisdiction.

The court was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the property adjustment claims, given the conflicting dates of separation and the prior discharge of consent orders. Furthermore, the court had to consider the wife's application to dismiss the husband's application and for additional payment, and the husband's counter-application for summary dismissal and indemnity costs. The court also needed to assess whether any adjustment to the parties' respective assets and liabilities was just and equitable, particularly in light of the significant time that had elapsed since their financial separation and the absence of jointly held property.

Cleary J reasoned that while the initial consent orders were discharged due to a lack of jurisdiction, the wife's later concession regarding the date of separation established the Court's jurisdiction for the current proceedings. However, the court found no principled reason to adjust the property interests of the parties. This was because they had ended their financial connection five years prior to the hearing and held no jointly owned property, and the husband had proposed that no property adjustment would be just and equitable. The court also noted that the husband's argument that the wife was estopped from pursuing her jurisdictional argument was unsuccessful.

Consequently, the court ordered that there be no adjustment to the property interests of the applicant and respondent. The court also dismissed various applications and responses filed by both parties, including the husband's initiating application of 16 September 2010 and the wife's initiating application of 4 December 2012, along with subsequent amended applications and responses.