PILKVIST & COBURN (DECEASED) BY HIS LEGAL PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES
Case
•
[2019] FamCA 635
•6 September 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
PILKVIST & COBURN (DECEASED) BY HIS LEGAL PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES [2019] FamCA 635
[2019] FamCA 635
6 September 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the applicant, Ms. Pilkvist, sought a declaration under section 90RD of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) that she was in a de facto relationship with the respondent, Mr. Coburn, from 9 October 2009 to 6 December 2016. The proceedings were defended by the legal personal representatives of the deceased respondent. Crucially, an order had previously been made by consent on 20 October 2009, declaring that a de facto relationship never existed between the parties.
The court was required to determine whether a de facto relationship existed between the parties during the period claimed by the applicant, notwithstanding the prior consent order. A further issue arose regarding the applicant's assertion that the de facto relationship had not ended, which, if true, would impact the court's jurisdiction to make property settlement orders. The court also considered whether the applicant's legal representatives should be referred to the Legal Services Commission for their conduct of the case.
Carew J found that the evidence did not support a finding that the parties lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis. The court noted that the applicant's legal representatives had initially sought a declaration that the de facto relationship continued until the present, despite the respondent's placement in a nursing home and the prior consent order. This position was later amended to claim the relationship ended on 6 December 2016. However, the judge ultimately concluded that a de facto relationship never existed between the parties, dismissing the applicant's application.
Consequently, the court declared that a de facto relationship never existed between the parties and dismissed the applicant's application for property settlement. Additionally, the applicant's legal representatives were directed to show cause as to why they should not be referred to the Legal Services Commission concerning their conduct of the proceedings.
The court was required to determine whether a de facto relationship existed between the parties during the period claimed by the applicant, notwithstanding the prior consent order. A further issue arose regarding the applicant's assertion that the de facto relationship had not ended, which, if true, would impact the court's jurisdiction to make property settlement orders. The court also considered whether the applicant's legal representatives should be referred to the Legal Services Commission for their conduct of the case.
Carew J found that the evidence did not support a finding that the parties lived together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis. The court noted that the applicant's legal representatives had initially sought a declaration that the de facto relationship continued until the present, despite the respondent's placement in a nursing home and the prior consent order. This position was later amended to claim the relationship ended on 6 December 2016. However, the judge ultimately concluded that a de facto relationship never existed between the parties, dismissing the applicant's application.
Consequently, the court declared that a de facto relationship never existed between the parties and dismissed the applicant's application for property settlement. Additionally, the applicant's legal representatives were directed to show cause as to why they should not be referred to the Legal Services Commission concerning their conduct of the proceedings.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Consent
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Beamish & Coburn (dec'd) [2021] FamCAFC 20
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Pilkvist & Coburn (Deceased)
[2020] FamCA 92
Beamish & Coburn (dec'd)
[2021] FamCAFC 20
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
1
Herford & Berke (No 2)
[2019] FamCAFC 182
Lynam v Director-General of Social Security
[1983] FCA 274
Ricci & Jones
[2011] FamCAFC 222