Matthews v Hobbs - [2006] SADC 34

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
MATTHEWS v HOBBS
Judgment of His Honour Judge Lee
27 March 2006
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS - ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS - SEPARATION AGREEMENTS
Application for division of property pursuant to De Facto Relationships Act 1996 – parties in de facto relationship for nearly 14 years – both made financial and non-financial contributions – after end of relationship, parties entered into agreements with respect to jointly owned real estate subject to mortgage, whereunder defendant received transfer of plaintiff’s interest and undertook whole of liability under mortgage – whether, as cohabitation agreements in terms of Act, agreements should be set aside to avoid injustice to plaintiff – plaintiff’s application made more than three years after end of relationship – whether one year period of limitation should be extended – application dismissed.
De Facto Relationships Act 1996 ss 3, 5, 8(1), 8(2), 9(3) & 11(1); District Court Act 1991 s 34, referred to.

MATTHEWS v HOBBS
[2006] SADC 34

This is an application for the division of property pursuant to the De Facto Relationships Act 1996. The parties to the action were in a de facto relationship between 10 August 1987 and 5 May 2001.
The application is in the following terms:
I Michele Matthews am seeking for the Court to order David Hobbs to pay me the sum of $35,000 (thirty-five thousand dollars) being my fair share of jointly acquired assets between the years of 1987 and 2001 during our defacto relationship. The properties being lots 33, 34 + 35 in the township of Bowmans. The properties being two dwellings and one vacant block estimated at around a total value of $180,000. The dwelling at 174 March St was in my name as being the purchaser in 1987 before our relationship. The second and third lots being purchased jointly many years later.
At the time of the relationship ending we also had joint assets other than real estate being contents, vehicles, shed contents etc of a value around $70,000.
The reason for my application to the Court is that after many attempts to reconcile the situation with David of the giving of all items promised he has continually avoided and even threatened me and made it quite clear there would be nothing forthcoming. I was forced into signing documentation signing everything over to him and he promised me I would get half the contents. I believed at the time that it was my only option as he threatened to destroy everything and take our daughter Hayley to Queensland.
The application was lodged in the Magistrates Court on 15 July 2004, more than three years after the end of the relationship, and later transferred to this Court. Section 9(3) of the Act provides:
An application for the division of property must be made within one year after the end of the de facto relationship unless the court, after considering the interests of both de facto partners, is satisfied that extension…

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 Matthews v Hobbs

Details

AGLC: Matthews v Hobbs [2006] SADC 34
Case: [2006] SADC 34
Decision Date: 27 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthews v Hobbs involved a dispute between former de facto partners over the division of their property. The case was heard by the Family Court of Australia, which was required to determine whether the property settlement agreements entered into by the parties should be set aside to avoid injustice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that the agreements, which provided for the transfer of the plaintiff's interest in jointly owned real estate to the defendant in return for the defendant assuming the mortgage liability, should be invalidated to prevent an unjust outcome. The plaintiff further sought an extension of the one-year limitation period within which the application had to be made.

The court had to decide whether the agreements between the parties were indeed cohabitation agreements within the meaning of the De Facto Relationships Act 1996 and whether, if they were, the court had the discretion to set them aside to avoid injustice to the plaintiff. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the one-year limitation period for making such an application should be extended given that the application was made more than three years after the end of the relationship. The court was required to balance the legislative intent behind the limitation period with the circumstances of the case.

In dismissing the plaintiff's application, the court held that the agreements were not invalid simply because they were made between de facto partners. The court emphasised that the Act did not provide for the automatic setting aside of such agreements to avoid injustice. The court also found that the one-year limitation period was a strict statutory requirement and, given the significant delay in bringing the application, the court was not persuaded that an extension was warranted. The court thus concluded that the agreements should stand and the application was dismissed.

The court did not make any orders setting aside the property settlement agreements between the parties. The plaintiff's application for an extension of the limitation period was also dismissed. The court's decision affirmed the enforceability of agreements made between de facto partners, provided they were entered into voluntarily and without coercion, and highlighted the importance of timely legal action in such matters.

Orders