Wall & Mitchell

[2010] FamCA 1194

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WALL & MITCHELL [2010] FamCA 1194

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Interim costs to meet legal costs and disbursements
FAMILY LAW – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS – Jurisdiction

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Part VIIIAB, ss 85A, 90RD(1), 90SB, 90SB(a), 90SB(c), 117, 117(1), 117(2), 117(2A)

Parker v Parker (1992) 16 Fam LR 458
Greval, J. S. v. Estate of the late Greval, F.; Sandalwood Lodge Pty. Ltd (1990) FLC 92-132
In the Marriage of Zschokke (1996) 20 Fam LR 766
PBF as Child Representative for AF (Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania) & TRF & LKL  (2005) 33 Fam LR 123

APPLICANT: Ms Wall

RESPONDENT: Mr Mitchell

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3705 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 24 December 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Johnston J

HEARING DATE: 25 August 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Livingstone

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Armstrong Legal

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Richardson, SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: York Family Law

Orders

1. That the application in paragraph 2 of the interim orders sought in the Initiating Application filed on 11 June 2010 is dismissed.

2. That both parties have leave to re-list these proceedings by arrangement with Justice Johnston’s Associate for further directions.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3705 of 2010

MS WALL

Applicant

And

MR MITCHELL

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction and Applications

1. The parties in these proceedings are Ms Wall and Mr Mitchell.  For convenience I shall refer to them as “the applicant” and “the respondent”.

2. The applicant asserts that she and the respondent were in a de facto relationship and that the relevant provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”) enable this Court to make financial orders in her favour.

3. The applicant is seeking substantive orders to the effect that the respondent pay to her the sum of $2 000 000 by way of property settlement and periodic maintenance in the sum of $2 070 per week. 

4. The matter which is immediately before the Court is an application by the applicant for an interlocutory order namely, that within 7 days the respondent deposit to the trust account of the applicant’s solicitors the sum of $150 000 to meet the applicant’s legal costs and disbursements.

5. All applications are opposed by the respondent who seeks orders to the effect that they be dismissed. The respondent also seeks an order to the effect that it be declared pursuant to s 90RD(1) of the Act that a de facto relationship never existed between these parties which would attract Part VIIIAB of the Act. In the alternative the respondent seeks a declaration that any de facto relationship between the parties concluded prior to 1 March 2009 and does not attract the provisions of Part VIIIAB of the Act.

Background

1. The applicant was born in 1977 and she is therefore…