KQ v HAE

[2006] QCA 489

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

KQ v HAE [2006] QCA 489

PARTIES:

KQ
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
HAE
(defendant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5545 of 2006
SC No 9851 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 November 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 November 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Keane and Holmes JJA
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

1. Appeal dismissed
2. Appellant to pay respondent’s costs of the appeal

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP – ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS – GENERALLY – where appellant and respondent involved in sexual relationship and friendship over a number of years but never lived together – where some financial and other assistance between the parties – whether error or bias on part of trial judge – documents relied upon at trial – view of evidence taken by trial judge – whether there was a de facto relationship between the appellant and respondent

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 32DA
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 260, s 291 , s 292, s 341

Mao v Peddley [2001] NSWSC 254; No 4011 of 1999, 9 April 2001, cited
PY v CY [2005] QCA 247; Appeal No 279 of 2005, 15 July 2005, cited
Thompson v Department of Social Welfare [1994] 2 NZLR 369, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on her own behalf
C J Forrest for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on her own behalf
McCullough Robertson for the respondent

1. THE COURT: The appellant claimed a property adjustment under the provisions of Pt 19 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) ("the PLA") on the basis that she and the respondent had lived together in a de facto relationship for a number of years and that she had made substantial contributions of the kinds mentioned in s 291 and s 292 of the PLA.

1. The appellant's case was that she and the respondent were in a de facto relationship from 1995 until the end of 2002.  The respondent acknowledged that the parties were involved in a sexual relationship which cooled over time to a relation of friendship which terminated acrimoniously at the end of 2002 or early 2003. The learned trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence as unreliable and accepted the evidence of the respondent and the witnesses called by him.  He dismissed the appellant's claim and ordered that she pay the costs of the action.

1. The appellant, who was unrepresented both at trial and on appeal, sought leave to adduce further evidence on the hearing of the appeal; that application was refused on the footing that the material could have no bearing on the issues in the case.  The appeal itself involved a number of rather diffuse arguments as to error or bias by the learned trial judge, some of which were based on a misapprehension either of what had occurred or what his Honour had actually said. 

1. The appellant’s first ground…