Meadows v Vance

In *Meadows v Vance*, heard by Judge Scarlett, the applicant sought property settlement orders following the breakdown of a de facto relationship. The dispute also involved an application for declarations, including one based on proprietary estoppel, where the applicant asserted she had altered her position in the expectation of acquiring an equitable interest in property. The relationship was of a relatively short duration and no children were born of the union.

The court was required to determine whether a property settlement should be made on a just and equitable basis, considering the contributions of both parties. A further issue was whether an adjustment should be made under section 90SF(3) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also considered an application for costs, specifically whether indemnity costs should be awarded and if a costs certificate should issue under section 10(3) of the *Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981* (Cth) following an adjournment due to the illness of the applicant's counsel.

The court's reasoning, as reflected in the orders, indicates a division of assets and liabilities that largely reflects their separate possession and names. The applicant was awarded all personal property in her possession or name, including specific vehicles and financial assets, while the respondent received sole entitlement to the real property and his personal property. Both parties were ordered to indemnify each other in respect of liabilities in the other's name. The court also ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs thrown away due to the adjournment of a hearing on 1 December 2015, fixed at $5,136.00. Any further applications for costs were to be made by a specified date.