Event and Time
Event Description
This case involves an application for review concerning a property settlement between a de facto couple following their separation after a 13-year relationship. The applicant, a de facto wife, sought to challenge the dismissal of her Application for Consent Orders by a Judicial Registrar, asserting that the proposed division of assets was just and equitable.
Application and Claims
- The de facto wife filed an Application for Consent Orders seeking to allocate 14% of the asset pool to herself and 86% to her de facto husband.
- The application was made pursuant to section 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
- There are claims of equal contributions from both parties during the relationship, which includes one child residing with the de facto wife.
- The application for consent orders was initially dismissed by the Registrar on grounds that they were not just and equitable.
Judicial Decisions
- The Judicial Registrar notified that orders were not made due to insufficient documentation, particularly the absence of a signed Statement of Independent Legal Advice.
- After addressing requisitions raised by the Registrar and submitting further required documents, the application remained dismissed.
- The de facto wife subsequently filed for review on 23 September 2022, seeking the original terms of settlement to be reinstated.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- De Facto Wife's Position:
- Claims that the proposed 14% asset allocation is fair based on equal contributions during the relationship. - Argues that the child should reside with her, reflecting her commitment and contribution to the child's upbringing. - Contends that the Registrar's decision was not based on an accurate assessment of their relationship and contributions.
- De Facto Husband's Position:
- Supports the dismissals made by the Judicial Registrar. - May argue the proposed orders were not just and equitable and questions the fairness of the division of the asset pool.