Wallace and Rankin

In a proceeding before Judge Willis, the applicant and respondent sought declarations and orders concerning their property interests following the breakdown of a de facto relationship. The dispute centred on the division of assets, including properties located in Queensland and Western Australia, and the resolution of associated debts.

The court was required to determine whether a de facto relationship existed between the parties, as defined by the Family Law Act 1975, and to make orders for the division of their property and the discharge of liabilities. Specifically, the court needed to ascertain the commencement and breakdown dates of the relationship and to establish a just and equitable distribution of the assets and debts.

The court declared that a de facto relationship existed between the applicant and respondent, commencing in July 1997 and ending on 15 November 2010. The court ordered a property division of 52% to the applicant and 48% to the respondent. This was to be achieved by the respondent paying the applicant $170,982.00 within 30 days. Upon this payment, the applicant was to transfer her interest in the Cairns property to the respondent and relinquish her interest in the Western Australian properties. These transfers were conditional upon the respondent refinancing all joint or applicant's mortgages and debts into his sole name at his expense, and indemnifying the applicant against all such liabilities. In the event of the respondent's non-compliance with these payment and refinancing orders, the court provided for the sale of the Cairns, [G], and [R] properties, with the proceeds to be distributed according to the 52%/48% split after discharging specified debts and sale costs. The orders also stipulated that each party would retain sole entitlement to property in their possession, separate bank accounts, and any superannuation or leave entitlements, and would be solely liable for and indemnify the other against any personal debts or liabilities encumbering property awarded to them. The court also made provision for the Registrar to execute documents if a party failed to do so and ordered the applicant to file submissions regarding costs.