PERKINS & MEAKIN

Case [2017] FCCA 2348


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PERKINS & MEAKIN [2017] FCCA 2348

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Applicant seeks to institute property proceedings following the breakdown of the parties’ de facto relationship – the Applicant contends the parties separated in February 2015 – the Respondent submits the relationship ended in May 2013 when the Applicant moved out of her home – where if the Court were to conclude the date of separation was as contended by the Respondent, the Applicant’s Initiating Application was filed more than two years after the breakdown of the relationship and he will need to seek leave to institute property proceedings out of time.

HELD: Date of separation found to be May 2013 – matter adjourned to enable the parties to file written submissions on the question of whether the Applicant should be granted leave to institute property proceedings out of time.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.4AA, 44(6), 90RD

Moby & Schulter (2010) FLC 93-447
Jonah v White [2011] FamCA 221
Applicant: MR PERKINS
Respondent: MS MEAKIN
File Number: MLC 313 of 2017
Judgment of: Judge Bender
Hearing date: 21 September 2017
Date of Last Submission: 21 September 2017
Delivered at: Melbourne
Delivered on: 21 September 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Perkins in person
Solicitors for the Applicant: Not applicable
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Meakin in person
Solicitors for the Respondent: Not applicable

ORDERS

  1. Pursuant to Section 90RD(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) it is declared that the de facto relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent ended in May 2013.

  2. By 4:00pm on 19 October 2017 the Applicant file and serve written submissions in relation to the question of whether he should be granted leave to institute property proceedings out of time pursuant to section 44(6) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

  3. By 4:00pm on 16 November 2017 the Respondent file and serve written submissions in relation to the question of whether the Applicant should be granted leave to institute property proceedings out of time pursuant to section 44(6) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 313 of 2017

MR PERKINS

Applicant

And

MS MEAKIN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from Transcript)

Introduction

  1. These proceedings were initiated by the Applicant de facto Husband by way of Initiating Application filed by him on 13 January 2017 wherein he seeks a division of assets between he and his former de facto Wife.

  2. The Respondent de facto Wife filed her responding material on 26 April 2017. In it, amongst other things, she disputes the date of separation claimed by the Applicant.

  3. The Respondent contends that the parties’ separated in May 2013 when the Applicant moved out of the home in which they had been living together as a couple.

  4. The Applicant submits the relationship between he and the…

Continue reading PERKINS & MEAKIN

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Perkins and Meakin [2017] FCCA 2348
Case
[2017] FCCA 2348
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Perkins & Meakin*, heard before Judge Bender, the applicant sought to institute property proceedings following the breakdown of a de facto relationship. The central dispute concerned the date of separation, with the applicant contending the relationship ended in February 2015, while the respondent argued separation occurred in May 2013 when the applicant moved out of their shared home.

The court was required to determine the precise date of separation. If the court found the separation date to be May 2013, as submitted by the respondent, the applicant's initiating application would have been filed more than two years after the relationship's breakdown, necessitating an application for leave to institute property proceedings out of time.

The court found that the de facto relationship ended in May 2013. Consequently, the matter was adjourned to allow both parties to file written submissions addressing whether the applicant should be granted leave to institute property proceedings out of time, pursuant to section 44(6) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The applicant was ordered to file submissions by 19 October 2017, and the respondent by 16 November 2017.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

Pursuant to Section 90RD(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) it is declared that the de facto relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent ended in May 2013.

2.

By 4:00pm on 19 October 2017 the Applicant file and serve written submissions in relation to the question of whether he should be granted leave to institute property proceedings out of time pursuant to section 44(6) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

3.

By 4:00pm on 16 November 2017 the Respondent file and serve written submissions in relation to the question of whether the Applicant should be granted leave to institute property proceedings out of time pursuant to section 44(6) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

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.