K v H-J

[2006] QSC 168

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

K v H-J [2006] QSC 168

PARTIES:

K
(plaintiff)
v
H-J
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S9851 of 2003

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

7 June 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

23, 24, 25 and 28 November 2005

JUDGE:

Douglas J

ORDER:

Application dismissed
Further submissions invited as to costs

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS – GENERALLY – where plaintiff and defendant were involved in a sexual relationship – where plaintiff and defendant never resided in one principal place of residence – where sexual relationship ended and plaintiff and defendant continued as close friends – where plaintiff assisted defendant in his personal affairs – where defendant loaned funds to plaintiff on the basis that they be repaid – whether de facto relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 32DA
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 287(a), s 287(c), s 291, s 292

Mao v Peddley [2001] NSWSC 254, cited
Thompson v Department of Social Welfare [1994] NZLR 396, cited

COUNSEL:

Plaintiff appeared on her own behalf
C J Forrest for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Plaintiff appeared on her own behalf
McCullough Robertson for the defendant

1. The main issue in this case is whether the plaintiff and the defendant were “de facto partners” as that term is used in s 287(a) and elsewhere in the Property Law Act 1974 and s 32DA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954. Relevantly, I have to examine whether they have lived together in a de facto relationship for at least two years or whether the plaintiff has made substantial contributions of the kind mentioned in ss 287(c), 291 and 292 of the Property Law Act, where failure to make an order adjusting the interests in the property of the parties would result in serious injustice to her.

1. As will become clear, it is my view that there has never been a de facto relationship in existence between them nor does the plaintiff become entitled to an order on the basis of “substantial contributions” of the type referred to in s 287(c) of the Property Law Act.

1. The plaintiff’s case was that she and the defendant were in a de facto relationship from 1995 to the end of 2002.  The defendant’s case was that they were friends who had a sexual relationship for a relatively brief period at an early stage and that later the relationship became simply a friendship that terminated acrimoniously in late 2002 or early 2003.  In the following narrative of the background to the relationship I have, generally speaking, preferred the evidence of the defendant and his witnesses, with some exceptions.  For a number of reasons detailed below I found the plaintiff to be an unreliable witness.

Background

1. At no stage did the parties live together in one principal place of residence.  Between 1995 and 1998 the plaintiff’s evidence was…