Event and Time
Event Description
The case concerns the application of an Applicant de facto Husband seeking property orders from the Respondent de facto Wife. The application was filed outside the stipulated time frame, and the Applicant requested leave to institute proceedings out of time under section 44(6) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The Respondent opposed the request.
Application and Claims
- Applicant's Claims: The Applicant sought leave to file property orders despite the application being late, arguing that there was a reasonable case for hardship.
- Respondent's Claims: The Respondent contended that leave should not be granted, asserting the Applicant failed to substantiate his claims of hardship and the reasonableness of his case.
Judicial Decisions
The court found that the Applicant did not have a reasonable and arguable case and could not demonstrate hardship. The application for leave was therefore dismissed, and the matter was removed from the court's list for further determination.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Claims:
- Applicant: Argued he should be allowed to proceed due to circumstantial difficulties and believed he would suffer hardship if leave was not granted. - Respondent: Argued that the application was late without sufficient justification and that the Applicant had no grounds for hardship.
- Arguments:
- The Applicant's assertion of hardship was contested by the Respondent, who stated that the Applicant had not provided credible evidence to support his claims.
- Evidence:
- Financial hardship claims included the Applicant's past business dealings and financial obligations stemming from their relationship. - The Respondent provided evidence countering the Applicant's claims, highlighting the financial transactions between the parties as largely benefitting the Applicant.