FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MONTANO & KINROSS | [2014] FCCA 843 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – De-facto property proceedings – initiate within two years of end of relationship – extension of time – tests – whether must give an explanation for whole period of delay – leave to issue out of time denied. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975, s.44 Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) |
| Frost & Nicholson (1981) FLC 91-051 Harris & Harris (1997) DFC 95-192 Sharp & Sharp [2011] FamCAFC 150 Star & Star [2013] FamCA 91 Tamaniego & Tamaniego [2010] FamCAFC 254 |
| Applicant: | MS MONTANO |
| Respondent: | MR KINROSS |
| File Number: | MLC 8860 of 2013 |
| Judgment of: | Judge F. Turner |
| Hearing date: | 26 March 2014 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 26 March 2014 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 30 April 2014 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms Wheeler |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Jane M Curtis & Associates |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Hannan |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Westminster Lawyers Pty Ltd |
ORDERS
The wife’s application seeking leave to issue proceedings out of time is dismissed.
The Initiating Application filed 14 October 2013 is dismissed.
All extant applications are dismissed and the matter is removed from the list of pending cases.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Montano & Kinross is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLC 8860 of 2013
| MS MONTANO |
Applicant
And
| MR KINROSS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This decision deals with an application by the de-facto wife to institute property proceedings out of time. (For convenience, the Court will refer to the de-facto wife as “wife” and the de-facto husband as “husband”). It is not disputed that the parties commenced cohabitation in 1992 and separated on a final basis on 23 November 2009, and that they were in a de-facto relationship for 17 years. There are no children of the relationship.
Section 44(5) of the Family Law Act 1975 (the “Act”) provides:
(5)Subject to subsection (6), a party to a de facto relationship may apply for:
(a)an order under section 90SE, 90SG or 90SM; or
(b)a declaration under section 90SL;
only if the application is made within the period of 2 years after the end of the de facto relationship (the standard application period ).
(6)The court may grant the party leave to apply after the end of the standard application period if the court is satisfied that:
(a)hardship would be caused to the party or a child if leave were not granted; or
(b)in the case of an application for an order for the maintenance of the party--the party's circumstances were, at the end of the standard application period, such that he or she would have been unable to support himself or herself without an income tested pension, allowance or benefit.
To be made within the “standard application period”, the application had to be made on or before by 23 November 2011. The…
Continue reading Montano and Kinross
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Montano and Kinross [2014] FCCA 843
- Case
- [2014] FCCA 843
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the wife should be granted leave to commence her proceedings outside the prescribed time limits. This required the court to consider the relevant legislative provisions governing the extension of time for initiating proceedings in family law matters and the factors that a court may take into account when exercising such discretion.
Judge Turner dismissed the wife's application for leave to issue proceedings out of time. Consequently, the husband's Initiating Application filed on 14 October 2013 was also dismissed. All other pending applications were dismissed, and the matter was removed from the court's list of active cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The wife’s application seeking leave to issue proceedings out of time is dismissed.
2.
The Initiating Application filed 14 October 2013 is dismissed.
3.
All extant applications are dismissed and the matter is removed from the list of pending cases.
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.