Senfl and Antinoni & Anor

In the matter of Senfl and Antinoni & Anor, the applicant and respondent disputed the date on which their de facto relationship concluded. The applicant contended for a later date, while the respondent argued for an earlier cessation. The court was also required to consider an alternative application by the applicant for leave to bring property settlement and spousal maintenance claims out of time, should her primary argument regarding the relationship's end date fail.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the precise date the de facto relationship between the parties ended, pursuant to section 90RD of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Concurrently, the court had to assess whether to grant the applicant leave under section 44(6) of the Act to commence proceedings for property settlement and spousal maintenance out of time, considering the potential hardship to the applicant if such leave were refused.

His Honour Cronin J found that the evidence presented, though vague and describing an unusual lifestyle, did not satisfy him that the parties continued to live together on a genuine domestic basis as a couple after February 2014. Consequently, the court declared that the de facto relationship ended in February 2014. Regarding the alternative application, despite the merits of the applicant's claim being questionable, the court inferred from her evidence that a refusal of leave would cause hardship. As there was sufficient evidence to suggest that some form of order under Part VIII AB of the Act might be granted, leave was granted.