MEYVANS & KEMPTON - [2019] FCCA 1845

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEYVANS & KEMPTON

[2019] FCCA 1845

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – De facto relationship – consideration of the circumstances outlined in s.4AA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 – mutual commitment to a shared life – duration of relationship – declarations sought – credibility in issue.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.4AA, 90RD, 90SB

Cases cited:

Jonah v White (2011) 258 FLR 236
Jonah v White (2012) FLC 93-522
Dahl v Hamblin (2011) 254 FLR 49
S v B [2005] 1 Qd R 537
Hibberson v George [1989] NSWCA 100; (1989) 12 Fam LR 725
Jones v Grech [2001] NSWCA 208; (2001) 27 Fam LR 711

Applicant:

MR MEYVANS

Respondent:

MS KEMPTON

File Number:

BRC 13367 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Howard

Hearing dates:

4, 5, 6 and 7 June 2019

Date of Last Submission:

7 June 2019

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

9 July 2019

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Selfridge

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Caldwell Family Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr D.Williams

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Gavin Parsons and Associates

ORDERS

That each party shall provide a copy of a proposed Final Order to each other party by no later than 4:00pm on 16 July 2019.
That the parties shall attempt to reach an agreed position in relation to the wording of the Final Order (reflecting the Reasons for Judgment) and shall send a copy of same to the Court by no later than 4:00pm on 23 July 2019.
That in the event the parties are unable to reach an agreed position in relation to the wording of the Final Order (and send a copy of same to the Court) within the time frame stated in paragraph 2 – each party shall forward a copy of their proposed wording of the Final Order to associate.judgehoward@federalcircuitcourt.gov.au by no later than 4:00pm on 23 July 2019.
That the Court shall issue a Final Order from Chambers or re-list the matter for Mention for the finalisation of the wording of the Final Orders, whichever it sees fit upon review of the drafts forwarded to the Court pursuant to the abovementioned orders.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Meyvans & Kempton is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRC 13367 of 2017

MR MEYVANS

Applicant

And

MS KEMPTON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Background

The Applicant, Mr Meyvans, was born in 1961.
The Respondent, Ms Kempton, was born in 1978.
The Applicant seeks a declaration that the parties were in a de facto relationship for a period of three years and one month.
The Respondent seeks a declaration that a de facto relationship only existed between the parties for a period of approximately nine months. The Initiating Application was filed by the Applicant on 14 December 2017. There was, in fact, no particulars of any declarations sought in the Initiating Application. In paragraph 1…

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 MEYVANS & KEMPTON

Details

AGLC: Meyvans and Kempton [2019] FCCA 1845
Case: [2019] FCCA 1845
Decision Date: 9 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this matter, Meyvans and Kempton, sought declarations regarding the existence of a de facto relationship. The primary dispute concerned the credibility of the parties and the circumstances of their relationship, which were relevant to the court's determination under section 4AA(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The court was required to determine whether the parties had a de facto relationship, considering the factors outlined in section 4AA(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved assessing the nature of their commitment to a shared life and the duration of their relationship, amongst other relevant circumstances.

Judge Howard considered the evidence presented by both parties, with credibility being a central issue. The court's reasoning, though not detailed in the provided text, would have involved an application of the statutory criteria to the facts as found. The court ultimately made orders directing the parties to propose final orders reflecting its reasons for judgment, with a timeframe for agreement or separate submissions to the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

That each party shall provide a copy of a proposed Final Order to each other party by no later than 4:00pm on 16 July 2019.

That the parties shall attempt to reach an agreed position in relation to the wording of the Final Order (reflecting the Reasons for Judgment) and shall send a copy of same to the Court by no later than 4:00pm on 23 July 2019.

That in the event the parties are unable to reach an agreed position in relation to the wording of the Final Order (and send a copy of same to the Court) within the time frame stated in paragraph 2 – each party shall forward a copy of their proposed wording of the Final Order to associate.judgehoward@federalcircuitcourt.gov.au by no later than 4:00pm on 23 July 2019.

That the Court shall issue a Final Order from Chambers or re-list the matter for Mention for the finalisation of the wording of the Final Orders, whichever it sees fit upon review of the drafts forwarded to the Court pursuant to the abovementioned orders.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.