Legal Research
Cases
Truman & Clifton

Truman & Clifton

Case [2010] FCWA 91 2 September 2010

Jurisdiction

De facto relationship

Res Judicata

Family Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2010] FCWA 91

JURISDICTION	:	FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT	:	FAMILY COURT ACT 1997
LOCATION	:	[REGIONAL CENTRE] and PERTH
CITATION	:	TRUMAN and CLIFTON [2010] FCWA 91
CORAM	:	THACKRAY CJ
HEARD	:	24, 25 & 26 NOVEMBER 2009, 13 & 27 MAY 2010, 2 SEPTEMBER 2010
DELIVERED	:	2 SEPTEMBER 2010
FILE NO/S	:	PTW 774 of 2009

BETWEEN

: MR TRUMAN

Applicant
AND
MRS CLIFTON
Respondent

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW - Jurisdiction - De facto relationship - Whether relationship "marriage-like" - Evaluation of factors indicating a de facto relationship - When a de facto relationship ends - Serious injustice - Application dismissed.

Legislation:

Family Court Act 1997 Interpretation Act 1984

Category: Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr H Moser and Mr T Clavey
Respondent	:	Mr R Hooper

[2010] FCWA 91

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Clavey Legal
Respondent	:	O'Sullivan Davies

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

E and P [2005] FCWA 4
Hibberson v George (1989) DFC 95-064
Hyde v Hyde (1866) LR 1 P & D 130 at 133

Ingamells v Western Australian Trustees Ltd (unreported, Supreme Court of Western

Australia, 5 March 1993)

L and C [2005] FCWA 23
Lynam v Director-General of Social Security (1983) 52 ALR 128 at 131
MW v Director-General, Department of Community Services (2008) 244 ALR 205
R v L (1991) 174 CLR 379
Re Kevin (2003) FLC 93-127
Richardson v Kidd [2002] NSWSC 306
S v B (No 2) (2004) 32 Fam LR 429
Van Jole v Cole (2000) 26 Fam LR 228
W v T (1998) FLC 92 -808

[2010] FCWA 91

ABRIDGED JUDGMENT

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT
PARTIES’ NAMES HAVE BEEN CHANGED

1 Mr Truman claims he and Mrs Clifton lived in a de facto relationship from 2003 to 2007. If he is right, I have jurisdiction to entertain his application for property settlement filed in February 2009.
2 Mrs Clifton denies she lived in a de facto relationship with Mr Truman. If she is
right, his application must be dismissed. Even if they did live in a de facto relationship, but it endured less than two years, the application must be dismissed unless Mr Truman establishes he made “substantial contributions” and that failure to make the orders sought would result in “serious injustice”. Mrs Clifton concedes Mr Truman made substantial contributions but submits there would not be serious injustice if the application was dismissed.
3 There is a further issue relating to the date on which the de facto relationship
ended (if it ever existed). Mrs Clifton claims any such relationship ended more than two years before proceedings were commenced. If that is so, leave was needed to institute the proceedings. In order to deal with that proposition, Mr Truman sought permission at the commencement of the trial to amend his application to seek leave to file out of time. Mrs Clifton’s counsel opposed the amendment, saying it constituted an entirely different case to the one he had prepared…

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 Truman & Clifton

Details

AGLC: Truman & Clifton [2010] FCWA 91
Case: [2010] FCWA 91
Decision Date: 2 SEPTEMBER 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Truman & Clifton was heard by the Family Court of Australia, where the primary issue was the existence and duration of a de facto relationship between the two parties. The court was tasked with determining whether the relationship between the parties met the criteria for a de facto relationship under the Family Law Act. The case also considered the circumstances under which such a relationship could be deemed to have ended and whether an application for serious injustice could be granted.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the relationship between the parties was of a nature akin to a marriage, whether the relationship had ended, and if there was sufficient evidence to support a claim of serious injustice. The court was required to evaluate various factors indicating the existence of a de facto relationship, including the degree of financial interdependence, the nature and extent of common residence, the duration of the relationship, and the degree of mutual commitment.

The court conducted a detailed analysis of the evidence presented, focusing on the factors outlined in the Family Law Act. It concluded that the relationship did not meet the threshold for a de facto relationship, primarily due to insufficient evidence of mutual commitment and shared financial responsibilities. The court found that the relationship had ended based on the available evidence. As a result, the application for serious injustice was dismissed. The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory criteria and the evidence provided, leading to the conclusion that the application did not meet the requirements for relief under the Family Law Act.

Orders