Ollie and Norwood

Case [2015] FCCA 71


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

OLLIE & NORWOOD [2015] FCCA 71
Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Practice and procedure (?) – de facto property application under s.90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – s.90SB(a) applied to application – Respondent issued proceedings under Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – consideration of meaning of ‘substantial contribution’ under ss.90SM(4)(a), (b) and (c) – consideration of meaning of ‘serious injustice’ in s.90SB(c)(ii) – substantial contribution found under s.90SM(4)(a) – Court not satisfied that failure to make the order would result in serious injustice to the Applicant – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Domestic Relationships Act 1994 (ACT), s.15(1)

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

Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), ss.276, 286
Property Law Act 1958 (Vic), s.228
Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (NZ), s.14A

Davies v Johnston (Revised) (Real Property) [2014] VCAT 512
Gibbons v Vowles (2003) 22 FRNZ 946
Henry v Williams [2004] 2 NZLR 132
Lee & Hutton [2013] FamCA 745
LF v RA (2005) 34 Fam LR 536
LS v ZJ [2005] NZFLR 932
Mallet & Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605
McMaster & Wilkie-Snow [2011] ACTSC 183
Miller & Trent (2011) 250 FLR 387
Rolfe & Rolfe (1979) FLC 90-269
V & K [2005] FCWA 80
Van Jole v Cole (2000) 26 Fam LR 228
Wall & Mitchell [2012] FamCA 114
Wentworth v Wentworth (1995) 37 NSWLR 703
X and Y [2010] NZHC 287







Applicant:

MS OLLIE
Respondent: MR NORWOOD
File Number: MLC 8579 of 2014
Judgment of: Judge Whelan
Hearing date: 18 December 2014
Date of Last Submission: 18 December 2014
Delivered at: Melbourne
Delivered on: 23 January 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms H Renwick
Solicitors for the Applicant: Brygel Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D Dudderidge
Solicitors for the Respondent: Nevile & Co Lawyers

ORDERS

  1. The Application filed on 24 September 2014 is dismissed.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 8579 of 2014

MS OLLIE

Applicant

And

MR NORWOOD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. This is an application by MS OLLIE (“the Applicant”) under Part VIIIAB, Division 2 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) in which she seeks the following final orders:

    1.  The applicant retain the proceeds of sale of the property situate at Property K.

    2.  That the respondent do all things necessary, including signing any documents necessary to enable the applicant to transfer use of mobile telephone number (omitted) to an account in her sole name.

    3.  That the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this application.[1]

    [1] Initiating Application filed by Ms Ollie on 24 September 2014, at p.2.

  2. It is not disputed that the Applicant and the Respondent Mr NORWOOD (“the Respondent”) commenced cohabitation in (omitted) 2013 at Property K (“the property”) and that the Respondent vacated the property in…

Continue reading Ollie and Norwood

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ollie and Norwood [2015] FCCA 71
Case
[2015] FCCA 71
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Ollie and Norwood*, Judge Whelan of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application filed on 24 September 2014. The precise nature of the dispute between the parties, Ollie and Norwood, is not detailed in the provided text, nor are the specific grounds upon which the application was made.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the application, as filed by the applicant on 24 September 2014, should be dismissed. The Court was required to determine the merits of the application in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence presented.

Judge Whelan ultimately dismissed the application. The reasoning behind this decision, and the specific legal principles that led to this outcome, are not elaborated upon in the provided excerpt. The Court's final order was that the application filed on 24 September 2014 be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Application filed on 24 September 2014 is dismissed.

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.