Norgrove and McClintock

In this matter before Judge Howard, the applicant and respondent were in dispute regarding property settlement following the termination of their de facto relationship. The court was required to determine the existence and duration of the de facto relationship and to make orders for the division of property.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether a de facto relationship existed between the parties and, if so, for what period. The court also had to consider the division of the net sale proceeds from a specific real property, including the allocation of funds to various parties and debts, and to determine the applicant's entitlement from the net property pool.

The court declared that a de facto relationship existed between the applicant and respondent from 2013 until 22 March 2018, pursuant to s.90RD of the *Family Law Act 1975*. In relation to property division, the court ordered that the real property at A Street, Suburb B, Queensland, be sold. The sale was to be conducted by private treaty in the first instance, with provisions for agreement on agents and sale price, or failing agreement, appointment of professionals by the Real Estate Institute of Queensland. If private treaty failed, the property was to be sold by public auction with a reserve price to be set by the President of the Real Estate Institute of Queensland. The net sale proceeds were to be disbursed in a specific order: payment to the Public Trustee of Queensland, payment of the respondent's credit card debt, a minimum sum or percentage of the net pool to the applicant, and the balance to the Public Trustee for the respondent's estate. The court also ordered that if the net property pool did not allow for the full $700,000 to be paid to the applicant, she would receive the nearest available amount. The court gave parties liberty to apply regarding the operation of the orders. The court also considered allegations of dishonesty against the applicant wife, finding that the evidence of Mr S, who observed the respondent husband to be alert and in charge of himself, was to be given more weight than QCAT findings regarding the husband's financial capacity, and that the assertion of dishonesty was not proven to the civil standard.