Walt and Quinn - [2018] FamCA 855

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WALT & QUINN

[2018] FamCA 855

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – whether the parties were in a genuine domestic relationship within the meaning of s.4AA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – where the evidence does not establish that a genuine domestic relationship existed within the meaning of s.4AA – application for property adjustment orders dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AA(1), 44

Jones & Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

APPLICANT:

Ms Walt

RESPONDENT:

Mr Quinn

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

508

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

26 October 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Baumann J

HEARING DATE:

16 October 2018

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Moreheads Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Jenkinson

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Lawyers By The Bay

Orders

That the Initiating Application filed 17 January 2018 be dismissed.
If the Respondent seeks to pursue an Application for costs, the Respondent shall file and serve within 30 days, written submissions in respect of costs and the Applicant shall by way of response, file and serve written submissions within 60 days.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Walt & Quinn has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 508 of 2018

Ms Walt

Applicant

And

Mr Quinn

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The Applicant Ms Walt (“the Applicant”) now aged 49 years and the Respondent Mr Quinn (“the Respondent) now aged 59 years agree that they commenced a relationship in Victoria in April 1998.
At that time, the Applicant had been living in the home also occupied by her mother in Suburb B, with her daughter X (the child, born in 1995) then aged three years. The Respondent lived on a rural farm property in C Town– some 20 kilometres from the Suburb B property – with his daughters Ms D (born in 1980) and Ms E (born in 1981) then aged about 18 years and 16 years respectively.
The parties dispute the nature and characteristics of the relationship, with the Applicant asserting that the couple were in a relationship on a genuine domestic basis, within the meaning of s 4AA(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”) from April 1998 to February 2016 - nearly 18 years. The Respondent says their relationship was a boyfriend and girlfriend relationship and not more.
The Applicant commenced these proceedings on 17 January 2018, within the prescribed two years from standard application period, from the date of the relationship ending,…

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 Walt and Quinn

Details

AGLC: Walt and Quinn [2018] FamCA 855
Case: [2018] FamCA 855
Decision Date: 26 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Walt and Quinn, heard before Baumann J, the dispute concerned an Initiating Application filed on 17 January 2018. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but the outcome indicates it was a matter brought before the court by the applicant, Walt, against the respondent, Quinn.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Initiating Application should be dismissed. The court was also required to consider the matter of costs, should the respondent choose to pursue them.

Baumann J ordered the dismissal of the Initiating Application. The court further stipulated that if the respondent wished to seek an order for costs, they were to file and serve written submissions within 30 days, with the applicant having 60 days to respond with their own written submissions.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Initiating Application filed 17 January 2018 be dismissed.

If the Respondent seeks to pursue an Application for costs, the Respondent shall file and serve within 30 days, written submissions in respect of costs and the Applicant shall by way of response, file and serve written submissions within 60 days.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.