VAN & NORD

Case [2017] FCCA 2727


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VAN & NORD [2017] FCCA 2727

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – De Facto Relationship – declaration sought as to the existence of a de facto relationship pursuant to section 90RD – where the declaration is opposed by the respondent – where the parties are in agreement as to very few facts – where the evidence given by the respondent is implausible, internally inconsistent and contradictory – issues of credibility – prior inconsistent statements – where the respondent is married for the entirety of the de facto relationship – sharing of common residence – finding of a de facto relationship.

FAMILY LAW – Final parenting – child of a de facto relationship – best interests of the child – where the respondent seeks no orders with respect to the child – where the respondent does not desire a meaningful relationship with the child – prior orders made with respect to paternity – change of birth registration to include both parents – child to live with mother.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.4AA, 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CC(2A), 61C, 61DA, 65DAC, 65DAA(5), 65M, 65N, 65NA, 65P, 69VA, 90RB, 90RD, 90SM, 117
International Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 7, 8, 26, 27
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.13.03B

Somers & Collier [2017] FamCAFC 123
Norton & Locke (2013) FLC 93-567
Taisha & Peng and Anor [2012] FamCA 385
Browne & Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL)
Moby & Schulter [2010] FLC 923-447

Elias & Elias (1977) FLC 90-267
Benedict & Peake [2013] FCCA 332
Benedict & Peake [2014] FCCA 642
McMaster & Whyler [2013] FamCA 989
Jonah and White [2011] FamCA 221
Simonis v Perpetual Trustee Co. Limited (1987) DFC 95-052
Light v Anderson (1992) DFC 95-120.
Barry and Dalrymple [2010] FamCA 1271
Lynam v Director-General of Social Security (1983) 52 ALR 128
JRR v PH [2005] QSC 253
Zau v Uongh [2013] FamCA 347
Vaughan & Bele [2011] FamCA 436
Tang & Vo [2016] FCCA 880

Roy v Sturgeon [1986] DFC 95-031
Hayes v Marquis [2008] NSWCA 10
Barnes v de Jesus [2001] NSWSC 19
Re Fagan deceased [1980] 5 FamLR 813
Vaughan v Hoskovich [2010] NSWSC 706
PY v CY [2005] QCA 247
KQ v HAE [2006] QCA 489
FO v HAF [2006] QCA 555
Piris v Egan [2008] NSWCA 59
Thompson v Department of Social Welfare [1994] 2 NZLR 369
Mao v Peddley [2002] DFC 77,515 at 77, 522
K v H-J [2006] QSC 168
Green v Green (1989) 17 NSWLR 343
Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52
Peake & Benedict(Costs) [2014] FCCA 2723
Re JJT & Ors; Ex Parte Victoria Legal Aid [1998] FLC 92-812
Bryant v Hawkesbury Radio Communication Co-operative Society Limited [2014] NSWSC 848
Nowlan v Marson Transport Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 116; [2001] NSWCA 346
White v Overland [2001] FCA 1333
Davida & Davida (Costs) [2011] FamCAFC 61
Aon Risk Services & Australian National University [2009] HCA 27
Haset Sali v SPC Ltd [1993]…

Continue reading VAN & NORD

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
VAN & NORD [2017] FCCA 2727
Case
[2017] FCCA 2727
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Van & Nord*, heard before Judge Harman, the applicant, Ms Van, sought declarations regarding the existence of a de facto relationship and final parenting orders concerning the parties' child, X. The respondent, Mr Nord, opposed the declaration of a de facto relationship. The parties presented conflicting accounts of their relationship, with the court noting significant inconsistencies and implausibility in Mr Nord's evidence, raising issues of credibility. A key factual dispute concerned whether the parties lived in a de facto relationship, particularly given Mr Nord was married throughout the period in question.

The court was required to determine whether Ms Van and Mr Nord had lived in a de facto relationship for the purposes of the *Family Law Act 1975*, specifically under section 90RD. Additionally, the court needed to make final orders regarding the child X, considering the best interests of the child and the respondent's stated lack of desire for a meaningful relationship. The court also had to address the registration of paternity for the child.

Judge Harman found that Ms Van and Mr Nord had lived in a de facto relationship from 2009 until March 2014, based on the evidence presented and the assessment of credibility. The court declared the existence of this de facto relationship. In relation to parenting, the court ordered that the child, X, shall live with his mother, Ms Van. The court also mandated that Mr Nord take all necessary steps to have his details recorded on X's birth registration and any subsequent birth certificate. Furthermore, Mr Nord was ordered to pay Ms Van's costs of the proceedings, fixed at $30,000, by a specified date. The court also made orders for the exchange of financial documents pending further directions.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS ON A FINAL BASIS THAT;

1.

Pursuant to section 90RD of the Family Law Act 1975, declare that the parties, Ms Van and Mr Nord, lived in a de facto relationship with each other commencing (omitted) 2009 and concluding March 2014.

2.

Mr Nord shall pay Ms Van’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings to date, such costs fixed in the sum of $30,000 and to be paid by Mr Nord to Ms Van (or as she may direct in writing) by close of business 24 November 2017 failing which:

(a) Interest shall then accrue upon that sum or such portion of it as remains outstanding from time to time at the rate prescribed by the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001;

(b) Ms Van shall be entitled to commence proceedings to recover that sum, interest accrued thereupon and costs of recovery in a Court of competent jurisdiction.

3.

The child, X born (omitted) 2010, shall live with his mother, Ms Van.

4.

Each of the parties, Ms Van and Mr Nord, shall forthwith and within 7 days do all things, sign all documents and give all consents, authorities and instructions as may be necessary to cause the details of X’s father, namely, Mr Nord, to be recorded upon the birth registration and any subsequently issued birth certificate for X.

5.

In the event that either party refuses or neglects to execute any deed, document or instrument necessary to give effect to these Orders, the Registrar of the Court be appointed pursuant to section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 to execute such deed, document or instrument in the name of the said defaulting party and do all acts and things necessary to give validity and operation to the deed, document or instrument upon the Registrar being provided with verification of such refusal or failure by way of Affidavit.

THE COURT ORDERS PENDING FURTHER ORDER THAT:

6.

The Respondent, Mr Nord, shall, no later than close of business 10 November 2017, file and serve an Amended Response, Affidavit sufficient to comply with Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 and Financial Statement.

7.

Pursuant to Rules 14.06 and 24.04 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 and within 28 days the parties and each of them are to ensure that copies of the following documents are provided to all other parties, namely:

(a) Copies of income tax returns, assessment notices and BASs for the last 3 completed financial years for that party personally and for any entity in which that party has an interest (such as a private company, trust or partnership);

(b) An up to date statement with respect to any superannuation interest of that party together with a valuation of the fund if not an accumulation interest;

(c) Copies of bank statements for the period from the date of separation to date for any account in that party’s name (whether singularly or jointly with any other person or in trust) and in the name of any entity in which that party has an interest such as a private company, trust or partnership;

(d) Copies of credit card statements for the period from the date of separation to date for any account in that party’s name (whether singularly or jointly with any other person or in trust) and in the name of any entity in which that party has an interest;

(e) Market appraisals with respect to any parcel of real estate in which any party has an interest;

(f) Any document within the possession, custody or control of that party proving, disproving or tending to prove or disprove any allegation of fact contained in either party’s Financial Statement or Affidavit or which will be raised as an allegation of fact at hearing;

(g) Copies of market appraisals or computer site print outs as to value of:

(i) Any motor vehicle the value of which is not agreed;

(h) Copies of all and any documents relating to the purchase, renovation or improvement, payment of expenses and/or sale with respect to the property, Property A, and including all documents relating to the receipt and application of the proceeds of sale of that property.

8.

Any document which is, at the date of this Order, in the possession, custody or control of a party and which is not disclosed and a copy provided to the other party in accordance with the above Order will not be admitted into evidence.

9.

The matter is adjourned for further mention and directions to 17 November 2017 at 9:30am.

10.

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.