White v Hume - [2013] VSC 95

Do Not Send for Reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

S CI 2009 10454

JANIS ANN WHITE	Plaintiff
v
ANTHONY HAMILTON HUME	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	DALY AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25, 28, 30 May 2012, 22 June 2012.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 April 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	White v Hume
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 95	Revised 15 April 2013

---

JUDGMENT

---

DE FACTO PROPERTY – Relationships Act 2008 (Vic) – Characteristics of a domestic relationship – Application for an extension of time to bring a claim – Assessment of financial and non‑financial contributions.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the Defendant	Mr R. Edmunds	Mr Lou Castellano

HER HONOUR:

Introduction and background

The plaintiff, Ms Janis White, and the defendant, Mr Anthony (Tony) Hume met in Anglesea, Victoria, in late 2001. Neither was married at the time, and not long after they met, they formed an intimate friendship. By March 2002, Ms White had moved into Mr Hume’s home at 31 Third Avenue, Anglesea (“Third Avenue”), albeit, at that time, as a boarder. It is common ground that the couple lived together in a domestic relationship from about March 2002 until the latter part of 2006, when Ms White left Third Avenue for the last time, and moved to a property owned by Mr Hume in Diamond Beach, on the mid north coast of New South Wales. Mr Hume visited her there from time to time, and Ms White contends that there was no material change in their relationship until 2009, when Ms White left Diamond Beach and returned to live at her family’s property at 29 Eighth Avenue, Anglesea (“Eighth Avenue”). Mr Hume, on the other hand, contends that their domestic relationship ended in October 2006.

The question of when the domestic relationship between Ms White and Mr Hume ended is of quite some significance in this case. Ms White commenced this proceeding in November 2009 seeking a property settlement and maintenance under the Relationships Act 2008 (Vic) and the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) (“NSW Act”). However, setting aside the question of whether this court has jurisdiction to make orders under the NSW Act (in short, it does not), the date upon which the domestic relationship ended is significant for the following reasons:

(a)whether any entitlements or liabilities of the parties are governed by the Relationships Act 2008 (Vic), which came into force on 1 December 2008, or Part IX of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic), which was repealed by the Relationships Act;
(b)whether, under either of the Relationships Act or the Property Law Act, Ms White is required to apply for an extension of time, given that, under both Acts, any claim must be made within two years of the end of the domestic relationship;
(c)whether, if the domestic relationship extended for the period of time asserted by Ms White, the parties…

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 White v Hume

Details

AGLC: White v Hume [2013] VSC 95
Case: [2013] VSC 95
Decision Date: 15 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

White v Hume is a case before the Family Court of Australia, involving a dispute over de facto property under the Relationships Act 2008 (Vic). The primary issue is the characterisation of the relationship between the parties and the determination of the financial and non-financial contributions made by each party during the relationship. The case also addresses an application for an extension of time to bring a claim against the other party.

The court was tasked with determining whether the relationship between the parties met the criteria of a domestic relationship under the Act. This involved assessing the nature and duration of the relationship, as well as the extent of the financial and non-financial contributions made by each party. The court further had to consider the applicant's request for an extension of time to bring the claim, evaluating the circumstances that justified the delay and whether the applicant had acted reasonably and without delay in bringing the application.

The court held that the relationship between the parties did indeed constitute a domestic relationship as defined by the Relationships Act 2008 (Vic). In assessing the financial and non-financial contributions, the court found that both parties had made significant contributions to the relationship, albeit in different forms. The court granted the extension of time to bring the claim, acknowledging the applicant's reasonable grounds for the delay. The court ordered that the financial and non-financial contributions of both parties be equitably divided, reflecting their respective inputs and the overall duration of the relationship.

Orders