Orwin v Rickards

In Orwin v Rickards, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia considered appeals concerning a financial agreement entered into between the parties, who were in a de facto relationship. The primary issue was the efficacy of the financial agreement, which was contingent upon the parties being in a de facto relationship. The applicant argued that the respondent should be bound by the agreement despite the respondent's earlier denial of the relationship in another proceeding. The applicant also claimed that the earlier sworn evidence was knowingly false. The court had to determine whether the change in evidence was credible and whether the relationship existed at the relevant time.

The court held that the primary judge was not satisfied that the relationship existed at the relevant time, and this finding of fact was not erroneous. The court further held that there was no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the applicant's claim for legal fees paid to the solicitor in the preparation of the defective agreement was not recoverable in the negligence claim. The court held that the damage was not the defective contract itself but rather the loss suffered as a result of the defective contract, which was contingent until the relationship ended. The court also held that the legal fees paid to the solicitor were not recoverable as they were not part of the loss suffered as a result of the defective contract.

The court further held that the applicant's claim for damages for negligence was statute-barred as the cause of action accrued when the applicant first suffered damage, which was when the relationship ended. The court held that the limitation period began to run from that point, and the applicant's claim was brought outside the limitation period. The court dismissed the appeals and refused leave to appeal to the High Court. The court held that there was no error in the trial judge's conclusions and that the appeal lacked merit.