Shee & Hale - [2020] FamCA 84

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SHEE & HALE

[2020] FamCA 84

FAMILY LAW – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – where the Applicant seeks a declaration pursuant to s 90RD of the Act that the parties were in a “de facto relationship” within the meaning of s 4AA(2) of the Act for the period 22 March 2010 to 12 August 2016 – where it is agreed that the parties were in a genuine domestic relationship for the “first period” from March 2007 to 22 March 2010 when the parties lived together under one roof – where the Court finds that no genuine domestic relationship existed in the “second period” between March 2010 and July 2012 when the parties lived in separate residences – where the Court is not satisfied that a de facto relationship between the parties within the meaning of the Act was created or existed for the period from July 2012 to August 2016.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AA,

Herford & Berke (No. 2) [2019] FamCAFC 182
Sinclair& Whittaker (2013) FLC 93-551
Onslow & Onslow [2016] FamCAFC 7

APPLICANT:

Ms Shee

RESPONDENT:

Mr Hale

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

2311

2017

DATE DELIVERED:

18 February 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Canberra

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Baumann J

HEARING DATE:

5 & 6 July and 8 & 9 October 2018

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY:

13 December 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

(5 and 6 July 2018)

Mr P Cummings SC with Mr J Longworth

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

(8 and 9 October 2018)

Mr A McInerney SC with Ms M Barnett

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Pearson Emerson Meyer
Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr T Kirk SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Broun Abrahams Burreket

Orders

That the Court declares pursuant to s 90RD of the Family Law Act 1975, that the Applicant and Respondent were in a de facto relationship from March 2007 to March 2010.
That these proceedings be adjourned for Case Management Hearing at 9.30am on 2 April 2020 in the Family Court of Australia at Sydney.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Shee & Hale has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2311 of 2017

Ms Shee

Applicant

And

Mr Hale

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

It is common ground in this matter that the Applicant Ms Shee and the Respondent Mr Hale were in a genuine domestic relationship from March 2007 to 22 March 2010.
Mr Hale says that from…

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 Shee & Hale

Details

AGLC: Shee & Hale [2020] FamCA 84
Case: [2020] FamCA 84
Decision Date: 18 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Shee & Hale*, heard before Baumann J of the Family Court of Australia, the applicant and respondent were in dispute regarding the existence of a de facto relationship. The applicant sought a declaration that a de facto relationship existed between the parties for a specified period.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the parties had been in a de facto relationship within the meaning of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) during the period from March 2007 to March 2010. This required the Court to consider the criteria for establishing a de facto relationship as defined by the Act.

The Court considered the evidence presented and, applying the provisions of section 90RD of the *Family Law Act 1975*, made a declaration that the applicant and respondent were in a de facto relationship from March 2007 to March 2010. The proceedings were subsequently adjourned for a case management hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Court declares pursuant to s 90RD of the Family Law Act 1975, that the Applicant and Respondent were in a de facto relationship from March 2007 to March 2010.

That these proceedings be adjourned for Case Management Hearing at 9.30am on 2 April 2020 in the Family Court of Australia at Sydney.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.