Granting leave for property settlement 11 years post-divorce: Was the primary judge's failure to consider the prejudice of destroyed legal files an error of law?

Property Settlement Out of Time: When Does Post-Divorce Delay Create Hardship and Still Justify Leave Under s 44(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to Pursue a Superannuation Split?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Lambertson & Lambertson [2021] FamCAFC 48, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing: Full Court of the Family Court of Australia (appeal from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia)

Presiding Judge: Ryan, Kent & Tree JJ

Cause of Action: Appeal concerning leave to institute property settlement proceedings out of time under s 44(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), in circumstances where the substantive foreshadowed relief was a superannuation splitting order under Part VIIIB and s 79

Judgment Date: 12 April 2021

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: s 44(3) out of time property proceedings
Keyword 3: hardship under s 44(4)
Keyword 4: superannuation splitting order
Keyword 5: actual prejudice and forensic disadvantage
Keyword 6: abandoned earlier leave application

Background

A former spouse, long after the divorce became final, sought permission to commence property proceedings that would ordinarily be time-barred. The practical target was not the family home or a bank account, but a superannuation entitlement that had grown over time. The other spouse opposed the late claim, saying the parties had already reached an informal property settlement years earlier, that the late application was unexplained, and that the delay had caused real prejudice because key solicitor files were destroyed and the historical negotiations could no longer be properly tested.

This dispute matters because it sits at the intersection of finality and fairness. Family law expects parties to move forward after divorce, but it also recognises that genuine hardship can arise if a party is shut out from a claim that, on a fair view, ought to be heard.

Core Disputes and Claims

What the Court was actually required to determine was not the final property division, but whether the Respondent should be permitted to even start that property case many years late.

Core legal focus questions:

Did the Respondent establish “hardship” within the meaning of s 44(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) if leave were refused?
If hardship was established, should the discretion in s 44(3) be exercised in the Respondent’s favour, having regard to the explanation for delay and the prejudice to the Appellant caused by the delay?
Did the primary judge err by making findings not open on the evidence, and by failing to properly address the Appellant’s claim of actual prejudice from the destruction of solicitor files and the loss of evidence about the historical negotiations?

Relief sought:

Respondent: leave under s 44(3) to commence property proceedings out of time, with an intended claim for a superannuation split sourced from the Appellant’s superannuation interest.
Appellant: set aside the leave order, contending the delay was inadequately explained and that the late application was prejudicial and inconsistent with what was said to be an earlier final settlement.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The relationship began long before the courtroom. The parties built a family life across relocations, property purchases, and the ordinary pressures of work, parenting, and financial decision-making. Over time, the Appellant’s employment generated a significant superannuation interest, while the Respondent’s role was largely directed to homemaking and parenting.

When separation occurred, two real properties existed in the background, and practical decisions had to be made quickly: where the children would live, where each adult would live, and how cash would be found to restart life in two households. The parties sold property and divided proceeds. The Respondent received a larger share of the non-superannuation property. That much was common ground in theme, even if the precise figures and the significance of superannuation in that bargain were contested.

The decisive moments that later drove litigation were these:

During solicitor-led negotiations after separation, the Respondent’s legal representatives expressed a preference for cash and an intention to minimise superannuation transfer, yet later a draft financial agreement circulated containing a proposed superannuation split in the Respondent’s favour.
The Respondent signed a draft financial agreement at a later point, but the Appellant did not sign it. The draft became a narrative battleground: was it evidence of an agreed entitlement, or merely an unaccepted proposal?
Parenting litigation later arose. During that period, the Respondent included a request for leave to commence property proceedings out of time and sought a superannuation split. But at the later hearing, those property aspects were not advanced, and the leave request effectively became abandoned.
Years then passed. The Respondent later revived the pursuit of a superannuation split and filed fresh proceedings well beyond the usual time limit, requiring leave under s 44(3).

This is the real-life anatomy of many late-filed cases: an early burst of negotiation and legal activity, a drift into silence, a later return when retirement planning, later relationships, or a sense of unfinished business triggers a renewed claim.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

(For this chapter, “Applicant” refers to the party seeking leave out of time. In this matter, that was the Respondent in the appeal.)

Draft financial agreement (unsigned by the Appellant) that included a clause proposing a superannuation split in the Respondent’s favour, described in the proceedings as a split of 52 per cent from the Appellant’s superannuation as at a particular historical point.
Affidavit material asserting that the Respondent believed a superannuation split would occur under the contemplated agreement, and that the property aspect of earlier proceedings may have been overlooked while parenting issues were finalised.
Financial material aimed at showing the practical impact of being denied any access to the Appellant’s superannuation, framed as retirement planning hardship.
The overall factual context of the marriage, children, and the different earning and superannuation trajectories of the parties.

Core narrative theme: refusing leave would lock the Respondent out of a potentially legitimate superannuation claim, causing substantial detriment, particularly in retirement planning, given the disparity between the parties’ superannuation positions.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

(For this chapter, “Respondent” refers to the party opposing leave out of time. In this matter, that was the Appellant in the appeal.)

Evidence that an informal property settlement had been reached in 2007, with the Respondent receiving a significantly greater share of non-superannuation property, and with the understanding that each party retained their own superannuation without adjustment.
Evidence about sale proceeds and division figures, including that the Respondent received substantial cash and also received the family car of material value.
Argument that the Respondent knew, at the latest when the divorce became effective, that property applications had to be commenced within 12 months unless leave was obtained.
Emphasis on the Respondent’s earlier attempt to seek leave within parenting proceedings, and the subsequent abandonment of that application at the hearing, suggesting the Respondent acted as though there was no intention to pursue the claim.
Prejudice case: solicitor files relevant to negotiations and any concluded agreement had been destroyed due to the passage of time, creating a forensic disadvantage that could not be cured by public records of sale prices.

Core narrative theme: finality matters; time limits exist for a reason; the Respondent had opportunities earlier; and the delay created actual prejudice that made the late claim unfair to litigate.

Core Dispute Points

Hardship: whether refusal of leave would cause the Respondent hardship in the statutory sense, particularly regarding retirement planning and superannuation disparity.
Explanation for delay: whether the Respondent’s explanation accounted for the whole period of delay, including the years after the earlier proceedings.
Prejudice: whether the Appellant suffered actual prejudice from the delay, especially through loss of solicitor files and the inability to reconstruct negotiations and understandings about superannuation.
Abandonment: what legal and practical weight should be given to the earlier leave application being effectively abandoned at a hearing that otherwise resolved parenting issues.
Evidentiary accuracy: whether the primary judge made findings about the negotiations and beliefs that were not supported by the evidence.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavits in family law disputes do more than list facts. They establish a storyline that aims to make the Court comfortable with granting procedural indulgence, such as leave to proceed out of time.

In this matter, the affidavits performed two competing functions:

The Applicant’s affidavit strategy was to show a plausible substantive claim and to frame the delay as an understandable consequence of negotiations, misunderstandings, and the dominance of parenting litigation at key times. The language sought to project continuity: the superannuation issue was said to have been pursued consistently in principle, even if not effectively prosecuted at every procedural moment.
The Respondent’s affidavit strategy was to show closure and reliance: the property issues were said to have been resolved, life decisions were made on the assumption the matter was over, and the long passage of time destroyed evidence that would have been critical to defending the revived claim.

The boundary between untruths and facts in affidavit contests often lies in the handling of detail. A Court is typically alert to confident statements that are not anchored to documents, and equally alert to the absence of a coherent explanation for extended inaction.

Strategic intent behind procedural directions about affidavits:

In leave applications under s 44(3), affidavit directions frequently reflect the Court’s need to decide a threshold question on paper: is there hardship, is there a reasonable claim to be heard, what explains delay, and what prejudice is shown. The point is not to finally determine property entitlements. The point is to decide whether the case should be allowed through the gate at all.

That gatekeeping function makes affidavit discipline decisive. If an affidavit does not address the whole period of delay with clarity, or if it fails to grapple with prejudice, the Court’s discretion is at risk of being exercised on an incomplete foundation.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Prior to the final determination of the leave question at first instance, the Court made procedural arrangements to determine the application largely without oral hearing, on the basis of affidavit material and written submissions. This is a common approach when the Court is deciding a threshold question, particularly where the dispute is framed as whether proceedings should be permitted at all.

On appeal, the Full Court made orders including:

Leave for the Appellant to adduce limited further evidence in the appeal.
Leave to appeal granted.
The appeal allowed and the first instance order set aside.
Remittal for rehearing before a different judge.
No order as to costs, with costs certificates issued under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) in relation to the appeal and the rehearing.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The appeal hearing did not re-try the property dispute. It scrutinised the logic of how the primary judge reached the threshold decision to grant leave. This is a different kind of courtroom contest. It is a contest about method: what was found, what was ignored, and whether the discretion was exercised according to law.

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The Appellant’s central attack was forensic and structured:

Identify findings that were not open on the evidence.
Show how those findings influenced the explanation for delay.
Demonstrate that the primary judge did not properly confront the consequences of the earlier abandoned leave application.
Demonstrate that the prejudice analysis was incomplete because it focused on the existence of alternative records rather than the loss of negotiation evidence preserved in solicitor files.

The Respondent’s position, in substance, relied on the hardship finding and on the proposition that denying a superannuation claim, in a long relationship involving children and differentiated earning patterns, risked injustice.

Core Evidence Confrontation

The decisive evidence confrontation involved the status of the draft financial agreement and what it could legitimately prove.

The primary judge treated the inclusion of a superannuation clause in a draft as if it was a successful negotiated outcome, implying it had a settled quality. The appeal challenged that premise. A draft amended by one side, unsigned by the other, is not evidence of a concluded bargain without further support.

The second decisive confrontation involved time and abandonment. The Respondent had, at one point, sought leave within earlier proceedings and then did not advance that application at the key hearing. The Appellant contended that this was not merely a procedural accident, but evidence that the Respondent acted at a time as though there was no intention to pursue the claim.

The third decisive confrontation involved prejudice. Public records can show a sale price; they cannot show what was said, offered, conceded, rejected, or accepted in negotiations that might explain why superannuation was left untouched in an informal settlement.

Judicial Reasoning: How Facts Drove the Result

The Full Court’s reasoning tightened the legal lens around three principles:

Findings must be tethered to evidence, especially where they underpin the explanation for delay.
Delay engages presumptive prejudice because a respondent is entitled to rely on limitation periods and arrange their affairs accordingly.
Where actual prejudice is asserted, the Court must grapple with it as a relevant consideration, not treat it as answered by the mere availability of alternative documentation.

“It is well accepted that to allow the commencement of an action beyond a statutory time limit is prima facie prejudicial to the respondent. A respondent is entitled to believe that the cause of action has expired and to arrange their affairs accordingly.”

This statement was determinative because it framed the discretion as an exceptional indulgence that must be justified, not a routine correction of an administrative delay. It shifts the practical burden: the party seeking leave must confront, with evidence and explanation, why the other party should be exposed again to a claim that the statute ordinarily closes.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Full Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal.

The orders included:

The first instance orders granting leave under s 44(3) were set aside.
The proceedings were remitted to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for rehearing by a judge other than the primary judge.
No order as to costs, with costs certificates granted to each party under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) in relation to the appeal and the rehearing.

The practical outcome was not that the Respondent’s out of time claim was permanently defeated. It was that the decision-making process at first instance was legally flawed and required rehearing with proper attention to relevant considerations and evidentiary foundations.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

This case has jurisprudential value because it clarifies the discipline required when exercising the s 44(3) discretion:

Hardship is necessary but not sufficient.
Explanation for delay must be comprehensive and evidence-based.
Prejudice is not a theoretical afterthought; it is a central axis of the discretion.
Abandonment and conduct suggesting a lack of intention to pursue a claim can be a highly relevant consideration.
Courts must distinguish between evidence of a concluded agreement and evidence of unaccepted proposals, especially in the emotionally charged arena of post-separation negotiations.

It is also a cautionary appellate template: the Full Court demonstrates how small factual errors can become decisive legal errors when they underpin discretionary reasoning.

Judgment Points

A draft is not a deal. Treating an unaccepted amendment as if it reflected agreement risks a foundational error.
The Court must evaluate delay across the whole period, not just the final segment before filing.
A previously commenced but abandoned leave application can materially affect how delay and intention are assessed.
Prejudice analysis must address the nature of what is lost, not merely whether some other documents exist.
The Court’s discretion must be exercised by weighing hardship against finality, with explicit engagement with relevant considerations.

Legal Basis

Key provisions and concepts invoked or engaged:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 44(3): after divorce becomes effective, property proceedings under s 79 can only be instituted out of time with leave, unless there is agreement.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 44(4): the threshold requirement of hardship if leave is refused.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79 and Part VIIIB: the substantive jurisdiction concerning property alteration and superannuation splitting.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 75(2): future needs factors, relevant to whether a substantive claim is reasonably arguable.
Principles concerning limitation periods and prejudice drawn from High Court authority in Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor.
Family law authority on explanation for delay and intention, including Althaus and Althaus.
Appellate principles on leave to appeal in discretionary contexts, including Medlow & Medlow.

Evidence Chain

Conclusion = Evidence + Statutory Provisions

Victory Point 1: Correctly characterising the evidence about agreement
– Evidence: the financial agreement document existed in draft form; the Respondent signed it later; the Appellant did not sign it; correspondence showed contest about superannuation clauses.
– Statutory lens: s 44(3) discretion requires an accurate factual foundation about what was negotiated and whether any settlement took superannuation into account.
– Legal consequence: if the primary judge treated an unaccepted amendment as “successful” negotiation, that mischaracterisation undermined the explanation for delay and the assessment of whether the Respondent acted consistently with pursuing the claim.

Victory Point 2: Demanding a complete explanation for delay, including inactive years
– Evidence: the Respondent knew of the 12-month limit from the divorce documentation; proceedings existed earlier; the leave claim was not advanced at a hearing; years then passed.
– Statutory lens: s 44(4) hardship does not erase the need for a coherent account of why proceedings were not brought earlier.
– Legal consequence: a partial explanation can leave the Court unable to responsibly exercise discretion because it cannot evaluate whether the applicant took all reasonable steps.

Victory Point 3: Treating abandonment as a relevant consideration, not an inconvenience
– Evidence: the Respondent included a leave request in earlier proceedings but did not prosecute it at the hearing; no evidence was filed as directed; the hearing concluded without property orders.
– Statutory lens: s 44(3) discretion is sensitive to conduct indicating whether a party acted as though there was no intention to proceed.
– Legal consequence: failing to consider what abandonment signified can be a failure to take into account a relevant consideration.

Victory Point 4: Recognising that prejudice is not answered by public records
– Evidence: property sale prices and bank records might still be obtained; solicitor files were destroyed; those files likely held negotiation history and drafts relevant to whether superannuation was traded off.
– Statutory lens: s 44(3) discretion must weigh hardship against prejudice and finality.
– Legal consequence: if the Court focuses only on whether some documents exist, it may miss the core prejudice: the loss of the very documents that would enable fair testing of the respondent’s narrative.

Victory Point 5: Applying the limitation-period principle as a practical fairness rule
– Evidence: long passage of time; both parties repartnered; life decisions made; evidentiary degradation.
– Statutory lens: s 44(3) is an exception to a time bar; the exception must be justified.
– Legal consequence: the Court must approach extension as a significant step that re-exposes a party to expired liability.

Victory Point 6: Separating hardship from merits, but still requiring a “reasonable claim to be heard”
– Evidence: disparity in superannuation trajectories; long relationship; children; future needs factors potentially favouring the Respondent; but uncertainty about what was already received in informal settlement.
– Statutory lens: hardship under s 44(4) and the discretionary balancing in s 44(3).
– Legal consequence: even if a claim looks potentially legitimate, it must still be weighed against delay, abandonment, and prejudice.

Victory Point 7: Using appellate review to police evidentiary discipline in discretionary decisions
– Evidence: identified misstatements of fact and findings not supported by the record.
– Statutory lens: discretionary powers must be exercised judicially, meaning on correct facts and correct principle.
– Legal consequence: where foundational factual findings are wrong, the discretion is vulnerable.

Victory Point 8: Selecting remittal rather than summary dismissal where the claim may still be arguable
– Evidence: the Full Court observed that, even on the Appellant’s own figures, the overall division could be argued to have favoured the Appellant, and future needs might favour the Respondent.
– Statutory lens: gatekeeping should not become premature merits determination.
– Legal consequence: rehearing allows both parties to address evidentiary deficiencies and permits a properly grounded discretion.

Judicial Original Quotation

“The requirement that the applicant under sec.44(3) give an explanation of the delay in bringing proceedings in my view requires a consideration of the whole period from the date of the decree nisi to the lodging of the application. It requires the Court to consider whether the wife took all reasonable steps to pursue her claim or whether, on the other hand, she acted at any time as if she had no intention of proceeding or pursuing any claim at all…”

This statement was determinative because it supplies the operational checklist for delay: it is not enough to explain a single missed step; the Court must examine the entire journey, including moments that look like surrender, abandonment, or conscious choice to move on.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The party who succeeded on appeal did so by showing methodological error, not by proving the substantive property case.

The failure at first instance, as identified by the Full Court, can be distilled into these practical lessons:

A critical factual premise was treated as established when it was not. Where a finding about an “agreed” superannuation arrangement is unsupported, the reasoning built on it is unstable.
The consequences of abandonment were not fully confronted. A Court cannot responsibly extend time without grappling with why earlier proceedings did not progress, and what that signals about intention and reliance.
Prejudice was dealt with in a way that understated the forensic reality: a fair trial depends on the ability to test historical negotiations, not just to retrieve sale prices.
The balancing exercise did not sufficiently integrate the limitation-period principle, which positions the discretion as exceptional and requires explicit justification.

Reference to Comparable Authorities

Althaus and Althaus (1982) FLC 91-233
Ratio: the applicant must explain the whole period of delay and the Court must consider whether the applicant acted at any time as though there was no intention of pursuing the claim. This authority is frequently deployed to show that selective explanations are inadequate.
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
Ratio: allowing an action beyond a statutory time limit is prima facie prejudicial; where actual prejudice of significant kind is shown, it becomes difficult to justify extension because fairness of trial is compromised. Although arising in a different context, its reasoning provides a powerful framework for prejudice analysis in extension discretion.
Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692
Ratio: for leave to appeal in discretionary matters, an applicant must show sufficient doubt about the correctness of the decision and that substantial injustice would occur if leave were refused, assuming the decision is wrong. It structures the appellate gateway in family law appeals.

Implications

Time is not just a number; it is evidence. The longer you wait, the more your case becomes a story without documents. If you want agency, act while records still exist and memories are still testable.
Do not confuse a draft with a promise. A document you signed is not automatically binding if the other side never signed or never accepted the terms required by law. Self-agency starts with asking, “What is legally complete, and what is merely proposed?”
If you start a claim, prosecute it. Courts read inaction as meaning. Even if the legal right might still exist in theory, practical credibility collapses when directions are ignored and applications are abandoned.
Prejudice is real-world fairness. When you revive an old dispute, the question is not only whether you need help; it is whether the other person can still fairly defend themselves. Agency includes anticipating that question and preparing evidence to answer it.
Hardship matters, but it does not erase responsibility. Courts can recognise genuine hardship while still requiring a coherent, full-period explanation for delay. Empowerment is not only about what you deserve; it is also about how you steward your rights.

Q&A Session

Q1: Why does the law impose a 12-month limit after divorce for property applications?

Because the law values finality. After divorce, parties are expected to arrange their financial lives with certainty. The time limit reduces the risk of old disputes returning when evidence has degraded and when people have restructured their lives.

Q2: If hardship is established, does that mean leave must be granted?

No. Hardship is a threshold requirement. Even if hardship is shown, the Court must still decide whether to exercise discretion under s 44(3). That discretion involves weighing explanation for delay, conduct such as abandonment, and prejudice to the other party.

Q3: What kind of prejudice matters most in out of time property cases?

Actual forensic prejudice matters most: loss of documents, destroyed solicitor files, unavailable witnesses, and missing negotiation history that prevents fair testing of what was agreed and why. Prejudice is not answered merely because some public records still exist.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Post-divorce property settlement threshold dispute concerning leave to institute proceedings out of time, with intended relief focused on superannuation splitting under Part VIIIB

Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment on appeal concerning the leave decision, with remittal for rehearing at first instance

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

This case belongs most closely to Family Law property procedure and limitation issues. The following self-examination steps provide structured reference points. They are general in nature and tend to be applied differently depending on the precise evidence.

Core Test Standard 1: Out of Time Property Proceedings After Divorce

Step 1: Identify the statutory time bar
– Confirm the date the divorce order took effect.
– Confirm whether 12 months have expired since that date.
– If more than 12 months have elapsed, proceedings under s 79 require leave under s 44(3), unless both parties agree.

Step 2: Identify whether hardship is established under s 44(4)
– Ask: if leave is refused, would hardship be caused to the applicant or a child of the marriage?
– Hardship is not mere inconvenience. It tends to involve substantial detriment, including being shut out from a claim that might materially affect financial security, especially in retirement planning where superannuation is central.
– Evidence that often matters includes: the asset and superannuation disparity, the applicant’s earning capacity, the effect on future needs, and whether the applicant has a reasonably arguable claim.

Step 3: Determine whether there is a reasonably arguable substantive claim
– The Court commonly examines whether the proposed claim is sufficiently arguable to justify leave, without finally determining the property division.
– In a long relationship involving children, contributions are usually broadly shared. Future needs factors under s 75(2) can be relevant, especially where one party has lower earning capacity or lower superannuation accumulation.

Step 4: Explain the whole period of delay
– The explanation must cover the entire period from the time the right could have been exercised to the date the application is filed.
– The Court will often ask whether the applicant took all reasonable steps, whether there were periods where the applicant acted as though there was no intention to pursue the claim, and whether the delay is attributable to default by the applicant.

Step 5: Address prejudice to the respondent
– The respondent is generally entitled to rely on the expiry of the time limit and arrange affairs accordingly.
– The applicant should anticipate that the respondent may assert actual prejudice.
– Actual prejudice includes forensic disadvantage: destroyed files, unavailable documents, faded memory, and inability to test the narrative about negotiations and agreements.
– If actual prejudice is significant, it tends to weigh heavily against granting leave.

Step 6: Balance hardship against finality and fairness
– The Court’s discretion is an evaluative judgment: it weighs the hardship of refusal against the unfairness of reviving an expired claim.
– A coherent, evidence-based explanation and a clear, tested response to prejudice usually increases the prospects of leave.
– A weak explanation and unaddressed prejudice tends to reduce prospects, even where hardship is claimed.

Core Test Standard 2: Property Settlement Four-Step Process

Even though the appeal concerned leave, the underlying dispute relates to s 79 property adjustment. The Court commonly applies a structured approach:

Identification and Valuation: determine the net asset pool, including superannuation interests, as at the relevant assessment date.
Assessment of Contributions: evaluate financial and non-financial contributions, and contributions to the welfare of the family, over the relationship and after separation.
Adjustment for Future Needs: consider s 75(2) factors such as age, health, income earning capacity, responsibility for children, and overall financial circumstances.
Just and Equitable: stand back and assess whether the proposed alteration is fair in all the circumstances.

De Facto Relationships & Matrimonial Property & Parenting Matters (Family Law)

This case arises from marriage and divorce, but the following statutory test is included as a complete reference standard because litigants commonly need to distinguish de facto thresholds from post-divorce thresholds, and because the self-examination library requires full inclusion.

Core Test: Existence of De Facto Relationship — Section 4AA

Duration of the relationship.
Nature and extent of common residence.
Whether a sexual relationship exists.
Degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support.
Ownership, use and acquisition of property.
Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life.
Whether the relationship is or was registered under a prescribed law of a State or Territory.
The care and support of children.
Reputation and public aspects of the relationship.

Property Settlement — The Four-Step Process

Identification and Valuation: Determine the net asset pool.
Assessment of Contributions: Financial, non-financial, and welfare contributions.
Adjustment for Future Needs: Apply s 75(2) considerations as relevant.
Just and Equitable: Confirm the proposed division is fair.

Parenting Matters — Section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Primary Considerations: The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents, and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, with protection from harm given greater weight.
Additional Considerations: the views of the child depending on maturity, the capacity of each parent to provide for the child’s needs, and the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with a parent.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Where statutory avenues are constrained by time limits, parties sometimes explore alternative pathways. These do not automatically bypass s 44(3), but they can frame negotiations and, in some contexts, can influence how fairness is argued.

Promissory or Proprietary Estoppel

Was there a clear and unequivocal promise or representation about superannuation or property allocation?
Did the other party act in detrimental reliance on that promise?
Would it be unconscionable for the promisor to resile from it?
Practical note: estoppel tends to require specific, reliable evidence of the promise and reliance. In family contexts, general discussions are often insufficient.

Unjust Enrichment and Constructive Trust

Did one party receive a benefit at the other’s expense?
Is it against conscience for the recipient to retain that benefit without payment?
Practical note: these doctrines can be argued where formal agreements are absent, but evidentiary clarity remains essential. Where key solicitor files are missing, constructive trust arguments can face a relatively high risk of failing due to proof difficulties.

Procedural Fairness as an Analogy for Discretionary Fairness

Although procedural fairness is most commonly discussed in administrative decision-making, the underlying concept is instructive: a fair hearing requires a fair opportunity to present and test evidence. In s 44(3) leave applications, the prejudice inquiry functions as a fairness safeguard, ensuring that revival of an expired claim does not undermine the integrity of adjudication.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

Post-divorce property proceedings under s 79 must be commenced within 12 months after the divorce order takes effect, unless leave is granted under s 44(3) or the parties agree.

Exceptional Channels

Leave under s 44(3) may be available where hardship is established under s 44(4), but the applicant should expect the Court to require a comprehensive explanation of delay and a clear account of prejudice.
Where an earlier application was commenced and then not pursued, the applicant should expect the Court to examine whether that conduct indicates an intention not to proceed, and whether the respondent reasonably relied on that outcome.

Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because you do not meet the standard time condition. Compare your circumstances against the leave criteria and prepare evidence that addresses hardship, the full period of delay, and the respondent’s likely prejudice arguments.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

It is recommended to cite this case in submissions involving:
– the evidentiary discipline required in s 44(3) leave decisions,
– the role of prejudice in extension discretion, and
– the significance of abandonment or conduct indicating lack of intention to pursue a claim.

Citation Method

As Positive Support:

Where your matter involves a late-filed property application and the respondent asserts loss of negotiation evidence or destroyed solicitor files, this authority supports a structured requirement that actual prejudice be considered as a highly relevant factor.
Where the opposing party relies on draft documents as proof of agreement, this authority supports careful distinction between proposals and concluded arrangements.

As a Distinguishing Reference:

If the opposing party cites this case to resist leave, emphasise your matter’s differences, such as a stronger and fully documented explanation for delay, absence of abandonment, or minimal prejudice because key documents remain available and reliably reconstruct the critical negotiations.

Anonymisation Rule: Use procedural titles such as Appellant and Respondent.

Conclusion

This case is a practical reminder that rights are not only created by law; they are preserved by timely action and disciplined evidence. The Court’s reasoning shows that hardship opens the door, but fairness decides whether you may step through it. The golden sentence is: Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Lambertson & Lambertson [2021] FamCAFC 48), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.