Roy v Sturgeon (1986) DFC 95-031 Simonis v Perpetual Trustee Co. Limited (1987) DFC 95-052 Light v Anderson (1992) DFC 95-120 Baker and Landon[2010] FMCAfam 280
APPLICANT:
Ms Moby
RESPONDENT:
Mr Schulter
FILE NUMBER:
MLC
10432
of
2009
DATE DELIVERED:
25 August 2010
PLACE DELIVERED:
Melbourne
PLACE HEARD:
Melbourne
JUDGMENT OF:
Mushin J
HEARING DATE:
27 & 28 January 2010, 14 & 15 April 2010
REPRESENTATION
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:
Mr Robinson
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:
Adrian Abrahams Family Lawyers
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Mr Hoult
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:
JH Legal Pty Ltd
it is declared that
Pursuant to sections 90RD and 4AA of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) a de facto relationship existed between the applicant and the respondent during the following periods:
(a)May 2002 to May 2004;
(b)August 2004 to December 2004;
(c)January 2005 to mid-June 2005;
(d)Late June 2005 to mid-December 2005;
(e)Late December 2005 to April 2007;
(f)Late June 2007 to mid-February 2008; and
(g)Mid-March 2008 to October 2009.
At all relevant times both parties were resident in the State of Victoria.
IT IS ORDERED THAT
That all extant applications be and are hereby otherwise referred to the docketed Registrar for the making of all orders and directions as may be necessary to prepare the matter for trial in accordance with the declaration made herein.
Liberty be reserved to either party to apply for any order consequent upon these orders.
IT IS CERTIFIED THAT
Pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 this matter reasonably required the attendance of Counsel.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Moby & Schulter is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE
FILE NUMBER: MLC 10432 of 2009
MS MOBY
Applicant
And
MR SCHULTER
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
introduction
On 1 March 2009 amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") came into force pursuant to which jurisdiction was conferred on this Court and the Federal Magistrates Court with regard to financial matters between parties to a de facto relationship which has broken down. That jurisdiction defines a de facto relationship as being one in which –
… having regard to all the circumstances of their relationship, they have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis.
The legislation sets out a number of "circumstances" which a de facto relationship "may include". Those circumstances relate to –
·the duration, nature and extent of any common residence;
·any sexual relationship;
·financial matters including ownership, use and acquisition of property;
·the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;
·whether the relationship is registered under a prescribed law of a State or Territory;
·the care and support of children; and
·the reputation and public aspects of the…
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 Moby & Schulter
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Moby & Schulter [2010] FamCA 748
Case
[2010] FamCA 748
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Moby & Schulter*, the Supreme Court of Victoria was asked to determine whether a settlement agreement reached between the parties was valid and enforceable. The dispute arose from a prior legal proceeding, and the parties had entered into a settlement agreement with the intention of resolving all outstanding issues. However, subsequent disagreements emerged regarding the interpretation and performance of this settlement agreement, leading to the current application before the court.
The primary legal issue before Mushin J was whether the settlement agreement constituted a binding contract. This involved an examination of whether there was a sufficient consensus between the parties on the essential terms of the agreement and whether the agreement was intended to create legal relations. The court also considered whether any alleged ambiguities in the agreement were so significant as to render it void for uncertainty, or whether they could be resolved through the application of established principles of contractual interpretation.
Mushin J reasoned that for a settlement agreement to be binding, there must be a clear and unequivocal intention to be legally bound, supported by an agreement on all essential terms. Applying principles of contractual interpretation, the court examined the language used in the settlement agreement, considering the surrounding circumstances and the objective intentions of the parties at the time of its formation. The judge found that the agreement, despite some arguable ambiguities, sufficiently reflected a consensus on the core obligations of each party and was intended to have legal effect.
Consequently, Mushin J held that the settlement agreement was valid and enforceable. The court made orders to give effect to the terms of the settlement, thereby resolving the dispute between Moby and Schulter.