FLAST NEWS
 ·   ·  762 posts
  •  ·  4666 friends

Court Denies De Facto Property Claim Due to Delay and Prejudice in Griffin & Turner (No 2)

Introduction:

In Griffin & Turner (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 1415, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia dismissed Ms. Turner’s application for leave to pursue a property settlement claim against Mr. Griffin, years after their de facto relationship ended. The court found her reasons for the delay insufficient and the prejudice to Mr. Griffin too significant to permit the case to proceed. This decision underscores the importance of timeliness and evidentiary integrity in property disputes.

Facts:

  1. Parties and Background:
  • Ms. Turner claimed a de facto relationship with Mr. Griffin from 2012 to 2016, while Mr. Griffin contended it lasted from 2014 to 2015.
  • They had one child, born in 2014, with final parenting orders in place since 2023.
  • Ms. Turner sought a 60% share of the property pool but later revised this to 25–30%.
  1. Delay in Proceedings:
  • The de facto relationship ended in October 2016, but Ms. Turner filed for property orders in September 2022, nearly six years after separation and four years beyond the statutory time limit.
  • She cited financial hardship, poor legal advice, personal trauma, and reliance on promises from Mr. Griffin as reasons for the delay.
  1. Claims and Evidence:
  • Ms. Turner argued she contributed financially and non-financially to Mr. Griffin’s properties and family life.
  • Mr. Griffin denied these contributions and claimed significant prejudice due to the time elapsed and the unavailability of evidence.

Issues:

  1. Did the court find the existence of a de facto relationship, and if so, over what period?
  2. Did Ms. Turner’s delay in filing the application cause prejudice to Mr. Griffin, outweighing the alleged hardship to Ms. Turner?
  3. Was Ms. Turner’s property claim likely to succeed, and did it justify granting leave out of time?

Applicable Law:

  • Family Law Act 1975 (Cth):
  • Section 4AA: Definition of a de facto relationship.
  • Section 44(6): Leave to apply out of time if hardship would result.
  • Section 90SM: Property adjustments for de facto relationships.
  • Precedents:
  • Fairbairn v Radecki [2022] HCA 18: Criteria for determining de facto relationships.
  • Waldmann & Paddack [2024] FedCFamC1A 100: Insufficient legal advice does not excuse delay.
  • Whitford & Whitford (1979) FLC 90-612: Hardship must relate to consequences, not the right to litigate.

Analysis:

  1. De Facto Relationship Determination:
  • The court found a de facto relationship existed between April 2014 and March 2015 and briefly resumed in late 2015 before ending in October 2016 (Paragraph 78).
  • Factors such as joint residence, shared finances, and the care of a child supported this conclusion (Paragraphs 77–79).
  1. Delay and Prejudice:
  • Ms. Turner’s reasons for the delay, including reliance on legal advice and financial struggles, were deemed inadequate under established law (Paragraph 120).
  • The court found Mr. Griffin was prejudiced by the unavailability of key evidence due to the passage of time (Paragraph 123).
  1. Likelihood of Success:
  • The court estimated Ms. Turner’s potential entitlement at 15% of the property pool, equating to approximately $122,000. The high costs of litigation would substantially reduce any benefit (Paragraph 112).
  • Given the limited merit of her claim, granting leave was not justified (Paragraph 124).

Reasons for the Judgment:

  • The court found that the delay was inadequately explained and caused significant prejudice to Mr. Griffin, who reasonably believed the matter was resolved (Paragraphs 120–123).
  • Ms. Turner’s claim had limited prospects of success, and the costs of litigation outweighed potential benefits (Paragraph 112).
  • The court declined to exercise its discretion to grant leave, dismissing Ms. Turner’s application (Paragraph 126).

Take-Home Lesson:

This case highlights the strict application of statutory time limits in family law property disputes. Courts prioritize the need for finality and fairness, particularly where delay prejudices one party’s ability to present evidence. Litigants must act promptly and ensure claims are supported by strong evidence to succeed.

FLAST

Close