MANDLEY & DEBBINS

In the matter of *Mandley & Debbins*, the de facto wife (the applicant) sought property settlement orders against the de facto husband (the respondent). The applicant's application for property settlement was filed approximately four and a half years after the de facto relationship ended, which was outside the statutory time limit. The court was therefore required to consider whether to grant leave to extend the time for making such an application under section 44 of the relevant Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's amended initiating application, given that it did not explicitly include an application for leave to extend time. This also encompassed the question of whether the court should grant such leave, considering the significant delay in commencing proceedings and the absence of evidence establishing the existence of a de facto relationship.

Judge C E Kirton QC determined that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the amended initiating application as it did not contain a specific request for an order granting leave to extend time. Consequently, the court found it could not entertain the application for property settlement. The court also noted the lack of evidence presented by the applicant to demonstrate the existence of a de facto relationship.

The court ordered the dismissal of the applicant's initiating application filed on 23 January 2019, as well as her application in a case and contravention application filed on 17 February 2020. Existing orders relating to the matter were discharged, and the respondent was granted 28 days to make any application for costs against the applicant.