FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP – Where parties were married for a short time but then separated and divorced – Where parties both formed subsequent relationships with other people – Where parties later enter into a de facto relationship – Alteration of property interests under Family Court Act (1977) (WA) – Consideration of parties' respective contributions – Consideration of s 205ZD(3) factors – Where de facto husband's financial contributions outweighed those of de facto wife – Where accuracy of de facto husband’s financial information could not be confirmed – Where de facto husband refused to mediate or negotiate in any reasonable sense and was determined to press the proceedings to trial

Legislation:

Family Court Act 1997 (WA)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr R Kroon
Respondent: Self Represented Litigant

Solicitors:

Applicant: Kroon Legal
Respondent: Self-Represented Litigant

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116
Bevan & Bevan [2014] FamCAFC 19
Bolger & Headon [2014] FamCAFC 27
Bonnici & Bonnici (1992) FLC 92-272
Chapman & Chapman [2014] FamCAFC 91
Clauson & Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595
Dekker & Dekker [2014] FCWA 61
Dickons & Dickons [2012] FamCAFC 154
Farmer & Bramley [2000] FamCA 1615
Fielding & Nichol [2014] FCWA 77
Figgins & Figgins [2002] FamCA 688
Fullgrabe & Fullgrabe [2015] FCWA 9
G & G [2004] FamCA 1179
GS & TS [2005] FamCA 40
Harrington & Harrington and Ors (2007) FLC 93-317
Hayton & Bendle [2010] FamCA 592
NHC & RCH (2004) FLC 93-204
Re F – Litigants in Person Guidelines (2001) FLC 93-072
Saxena & Saxena (2006) FLC 93-268
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Steinbrenner & Steinbrenner [2008] FamCAFC 193
Waters & Jurek (1995) FLC 92-635
Ex tempore Reasons for Judgment

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT - PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

Introduction
1I propose to deliver ex tempore reasons. In my view, although the trial ran for only two days, it was two days too long for a case that should have been mediated and resolved by negotiation between the parties. I accept the submission of Mr Kroon (who appeared for the wife), however, that [Mr Bridges] absolutely refused to mediate or negotiate in any reasonable sense and that he was not prepared to cooperate effectively in the process of alternative dispute resolution. I find that he was determined to take this matter to trial – for reasons which are completely incomprehensible to me. This was a simple case and, with some good will on each side, it could have been resolved at a very early stage, and at very modest cost to each party.
2Applications concerning the property of former de…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading JOSLIN and BRIDGES

Details

AGLC: JOSLIN and BRIDGES [2015] FCWA 114
Case: [2015] FCWA 114
Decision Date: 15 OCTOBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were Joslin and Bridges. The dispute was about the division of property interests between the parties following a series of personal and legal relationships. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia. Initially, the parties were married, but they separated and subsequently divorced. Each party then entered into separate relationships with other individuals. Later, Joslin and Bridges entered into a de facto relationship. The central issue before the court was whether the parties' previous relationships and subsequent de facto relationship affected their property interests.

The legal issues the court needed to address included the application of the Family Law Act to determine the division of property between de facto partners, and whether the parties' previous relationships and property interests should be taken into account when determining their interests in the current relationship. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the previous marriages and property interests acquired during those marriages could be disregarded when considering the property division between Joslin and Bridges.

The court held that the Family Law Act applied to de facto relationships in a manner similar to how it applies to married couples. It emphasised the importance of fairness and justice in determining the division of property between de facto partners. The court noted that while previous relationships and property interests should be considered, they were not determinative of the outcome. Instead, the court focused on the contributions and circumstances of the current de facto relationship. The court concluded that the property division should reflect the nature and duration of the de facto relationship, as well as the contributions made by each party.

Ultimately, the court ordered that the property interests of Joslin and Bridges be divided in a manner that reflected their de facto relationship, taking into account their contributions and the circumstances of their relationship.

Orders