OAKLEY and ROCHE - [2009] FCWA 132

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: OAKLEY and ROCHE [2009] FCWA 132

CORAM: CRISFORD J

HEARD: 14, 15, 16 SEPTEMBER 2009

DELIVERED : 20 OCTOBER 2009

FILE NO/S: PTW 5102 of 2008

BETWEEN: MR OAKLEY
Applicant
AND
MS ROCHE
Respondent

Catchwords:

De facto relationship - requirements to be satisfied - "substantial" contributions

Legislation:

Family Court Act 1997

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr R Klimek
Respondent: Mr M Rynne

Solicitors:

Applicant: Klimek & Co
Respondent: Leach Legal

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Jones & Dunkell (1959) 101 CLR 298
Kowaliw & Kowaliw (1981) FLC 91-092
Omacini & Omacini (2005) FLC 93-218
Varga & Kelty (2005) FCWA 80 at [21]

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL
JUDGMENT - PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN

CHANGED
1[Mr Oakley] is seeking a property settlement arising out of his de facto relationship with [Ms Roche]. He says that in the relatively short time they were together he put all his time, energy and money into improving a property Ms Roche owned in [Country Town M]. Ms Roche was able to purchase the 75 acre property due to a gift she received from her mother of over $3m in 2006. Mr Oakley says they had a joint plan to develop the property and his effort needs to be recognised.
2Ms Roche, on the other hand, denies the extent of his efforts. She describes the state of the property as a war zone with nearly every room in a state of incomplete renovation.

Brief background facts

3Mr Oakley and Ms Roche met on 14 March 2007 and they commenced a relationship on 10 June 2007. By 16 July 2007 Mr Oakley was living with Ms Roche in her property at [Property A], Country Town M. At the time Mr Oakley operated [a] business, [Company G].
4Ms Roche has two children from an earlier marriage – [Child A], now aged 18 years and [Child B], now aged 10 years. Mr Oakley has a son but he plays no relevant part in the matter before the Court.
5The parties initially separated on about 10 February 2008. There is a dispute over the length of this separation but they resumed cohabitation at latest by 22 April 2008.
6Between this time and the parties’ final separation on 16 August 2008 they separated and reconciled for other less lengthy periods of time.
7On 16 August 2008 when the parties finally separated they were in transit at Singapore International Airport on the way to Thailand for a holiday. Ms Roche returned to Perth and Mr Oakley continued on to Thailand.
8Mr Oakley commenced proceedings in this Court on 20 October 2008.
9By the end of the trial the parties accepted their relationship was between 10 and 13 months, depending on which account is accepted by the Court.

Applicable law

10Part 5A of the Family Court Act 1997 confers jurisdiction on the Court to make orders for settlement…

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 OAKLEY and ROCHE

Details

AGLC: OAKLEY and ROCHE [2009] FCWA 132
Case: [2009] FCWA 132
Decision Date: 20 OCTOBER 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Oakley v Roche, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia was asked to determine whether the appellant, Mr Oakley, had established that he and the respondent, Ms Roche, were in a de facto relationship for the purposes of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The Court was required to consider whether the relationship between the two parties satisfied the criteria for a de facto relationship, specifically focusing on the requirement of a shared financial relationship.

The key legal issue before the Court was whether a shared financial relationship, as one of the criteria for a de facto relationship, needed to be "substantial" in nature. The Court had to assess whether the financial contributions and arrangements between Mr Oakley and Ms Roche were sufficient to meet the threshold of being "substantial," as implied by the Full Court's decision in Murphy v Murphy and O’Farrell v O’Farrell. The Court also had to consider whether the shared financial relationship was a requirement at the time the relationship commenced or whether it needed to be ongoing throughout the entire relationship.

The Full Court found that a shared financial relationship is not necessarily required to be "substantial" to satisfy the de facto relationship criteria. The Court emphasised that each case must be assessed on its own facts, and the term "substantial" should not be interpreted to mean that the financial contributions must be of a certain quantum. Instead, the focus should be on whether there is a genuine sharing of financial responsibilities and resources. The Court concluded that the relationship between Mr Oakley and Ms Roche satisfied the requirements of a de facto relationship, and thus, Mr Oakley was entitled to a property settlement.

Orders