ROWLANDS & ARDEN - [2016] FCCA 2993

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ROWLANDS & ARDEN

[2016] FCCA 2993

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – De Facto relationship –– whether it is just and equitable to adjust the property interests of the parties – whether the Applicant working in the Respondent’s business is a contribution or whether it is balanced by his paying for the Applicant’s expenses in their entirety.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.90SF(3), 90SM, 4AA, 90SB, 90RD(1)

Cases cited:

Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116
Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242
Crowley & Pappas [2013] FamCA 783
Friar & Friar [2011] FamCAFC 71
Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101
Holden & Wolff (2014) Fam CAFC 224
Johan & White [2011] FamCA 221
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583
Norton & Locke (2013) FLC 93-567
Spencer & Speight [2014] FamCA 436

Stanford v Stanford (2012) FLC 93-495

Applicant:

MS ROWLANDS

Respondent:

MR ARDEN

File Number:

DGC 80 of 2015

Judgment of:

Judge Small

Hearing date:

23 June 2016

Date of Last Submission:

23 June 2016

Delivered at:

Morwell

Delivered on:

23 November 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Self-represented

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Self-represented

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Gates of Counsel

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Warren Graham & Murphy

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

Pursuant to s.90RD(1) of the Family Law Act1975, the Court declares that the parties were in a de facto relationship between April 2010 and February 2014.

AND THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Within twenty-eight (28) days the Respondent shall pay to the Applicant the sum of $5,432.30 (“the payment”).
Contemporaneously with the payment the Applicant shall relinquish all her right title and interest in any property registered in the name of the Respondent and shall withdraw any caveat she has lodged against any of the real properties owned by the Respondent.
If the Respondent fails to make the payment by the due date then he shall do all such acts and things and sign all such documents as might be necessary to place the property known as and situate at Property M, New South Wales (“the real property”) on the market for sale, and the proceeds of sale shall be applied as follows:
(a)Firstly, to pay all costs and commissions of the sale;
(b)Secondly, to discharge the mortgage over the real property;
(c)Thirdly, to make the payment to the Applicant, together with interest accrued at the rate of 10% per annum from the due date to the date of payment; and
(d)Fourthly, the remainder to the Respondent.
Should the Respondent fail to comply with paragraph 4 hereof then pursuant to s.106A of the Family Law Act 1975 a Registrar of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Melbourne shall be appointed to sign any and all such documents on his behalf as may be necessary to give effect to these orders, and the Registrar shall be satisfied as to his or her authority under this order upon the Applicant or her legal representative filing an Affidavit setting out the Respondent’s…

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 ROWLANDS & ARDEN

Details

AGLC: Rowlands and Arden [2016] FCCA 2993
Case: [2016] FCCA 2993
Decision Date: 23 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Rowlands & Arden* concerned a dispute between two parties, Rowlands and Arden, heard before Small J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it involved a legal disagreement requiring judicial determination.

The central legal issue before Small J was to determine the appropriate interpretation and application of certain legal principles in the context of the dispute between Rowlands and Arden. The specific legal questions revolved around the rights and obligations of the parties as they pertained to the matter before the court.

Small J's reasoning and the legal principles applied would have been based on relevant Australian statutes and common law. The judgment would have involved an analysis of the evidence presented and the application of established legal doctrines to the facts of the case to reach a conclusion.

The final orders or outcome of the case, as determined by Small J, would have resolved the dispute between Rowlands and Arden, outlining the rights and liabilities of each party.

Orders