Tang & Vo

[2016] FCCA 880

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TANG & VO [2016] FCCA 880

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – De facto property jurisdiction – whether it is necessary to establish that the parties lived together – whether the parties did in fact live together – Elias principle.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975, ss.4AA, 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA, 90SB, 90SM
Evidence Act 1995, s.128

Cases cited:
Ricci v Jones [2011] FamCAFC 222
Moby v Schulter (2010) FLC ¶93-447, [2010] FamCA 748
Elias (1977) 29 FLR 393, (1977) 3 Fam LR 11,496, (1977) FLC 90-267
JPDJ v DADJ [2005] FMCAfam 86
Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538, (1995) 184 CLR 538, (1995) 132 ALR 133, (1995) 70 ALJR 47, [1995] 19 Leg Rep 14, [1996] ANZ ConvR 280, [1995] HCA 25
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67

Applicant: MR TANG

Respondent: MS VO

File Number: MLC 9225 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Riley

Hearing date: 2 & 3 March 2016

Date of last submission: 23 March 2016

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 19 April 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the applicant: Mr Nguyen

Solicitors for the applicant: Winstan Lawyers

Counsel for the respondent: Mr Tesoriero

Solicitors for the respondent: Indovino’s Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The application filed on 30 September 2015 be dismissed.

DIRECTIONS

1. The Registrar refer this matter to the State Revenue Office for investigation into whether the respondent received a stamp duty exemption and/or a first homeowners’ grant to which she was not entitled.

2. The Registrar make available to the State Revenue Office a copy of these orders and the reasons for judgment, and such other documents from the court file as the State Revenue Office may require for its investigation.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 9225 of 2015

MR TANG

Applicant

And

MS VO

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This is an application for de facto property settlement.  A preliminary question has arisen as to whether there was a de facto relationship between the parties.  The applicant, Mr Tang, asserts that there was.  The respondent, Ms Vo, accepts that they had a casual, dating relationship but denies that it was a de facto relationship.

2. During the relationship, Mr Tang was unemployed for the bulk of the time and Ms Vo worked as a (occupation omitted).  Mr Tang now runs an (omitted) business.

3. It is common ground that:

   a)the parties had a sexual relationship between 2008 and 2014;

   b)during that time, they had a number of overseas holidays together, including to (country omitted) and (country omitted);

   c)they attended family gatherings as a couple, where they were introduced to and met various relatives as a couple;

   d)they attended weddings as a couple;

   e)Ms Vo bought a property at Property O in her sole name in 2011 and sold it in 2014;

   f)Mr Tang lived at the Property O property…