By -

Key decisions

  • McCoy & Chancellor [2014] FamCAFC 62
  • Balzano [2014] FCCA 615
  • Parkes [2014] FCCA 102
  • Penn & Haughton & Anor [2013] FCCA 1941

Property – Leave to proceed out of time – ‘Hardship’ – Stanford argued

In McCoy & Chancellor [2014] FamCAFC 62 (11 April 2014) the Full Court (May, Strickland & Kent JJ) dismissed Ms McCoy’s appeal from Judge Turner’s granting of leave to Ms Chancellor under s 44(6) FLA to apply for property orders three months out of time. The parties had been in a de facto relationship for 27 years. The appellant argued (para 33) that before considering hardship under s 44(6)(a) the judge was required to make findings that altering the property interests under s 90SM was necessary to do justice and equity between the parties and that a mere intermingling of property and financial resources was insufficient to demonstrate hardship. The Full Court said (para 37): “ … the voluntary severance of the de facto relationship rendered the just and equitable requirement ‘readily satisfied’ in the language of the High Court. As is made clear by Stanford [[2012] HCA 52] it is not necessary to find that an order adjusting property interests will be made, for the just and equitable requirement to be satisfied. Indeed [Stanford] allows for cases where the just and equitable requirement is fulfilled, but application of s 79(4) may result in no order being made adjusting the parties’ existing property interests.”

You've reached the end of this article preview

There's more to read! Subscribe to LSJ today to access the rest of our updates, articles and multimedia content.

Subscribe to LSJ

Already an LSJ subscriber or Law Society member? Sign in to read the rest of the article.

Sign in to read more