Kramer v Hackett-Jones

[2007] HCATrans 556

[2007] HCATrans 556

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B44 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

WILHELMINA GERARDA MARIA KRAMER

Applicant

and

RICHARD HACKETT-JONES

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 3 OCTOBER 2007, AT 9.21 AM  

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicant claims that she and the respondent were "de facto partners" within the meaning of s 287(a) of the Property Law Act 1974 (Q), and that she was accordingly entitled to apply for a property adjustment order under Part 19 of that Act.

On 7 June 2006, Douglas J in the Supreme Court of Queensland rejected the applicant's claim.  His Honour formed an adverse view of the applicant's credit, and held that no de facto relationship existed between her and the respondent.  Accordingly, the applicant was not entitled to a property adjustment order.

This conclusion was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 24 November 2006.  McMurdo P, Keane and Holmes JJA found that no error had been shown in the factual conclusions reached by the trial judge, and nor was there any substance to the applicant's complaint that his Honour was biased.

The application for special leave to appeal does not advance any question of law that would justify the intervention of this Court.  The purported grounds of appeal largely concern factual matters and are devoid of legal merit.  There are no prospects of success on any appeal to this Court.  Special leave is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.  I publish the disposition signed by Justice Kiefel and myself.

AT 9.22 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED