De Facto Property Settlement Out of Time: When does hardship justify leave under s 44(6) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and a 75/25 division of the former home?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Sheppard & Reeves [2022] FedCFamC2F 317 (DGC 1391 of 2021), 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

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).

Presiding Judge

Judge Burchardt.

Cause of Action

Application for property orders arising from a de facto relationship, including an application for leave to proceed out of time under s 44(6) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Judgment Date

24 March 2022.

Core Keywords

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case

Authentic Judgment Case.

Keyword 2

De facto property settlement.

Keyword 3

Limitation period and extension of time.

Keyword 4

Hardship test under s 44(6).

Keyword 5

Contributions and future needs.

Keyword 6

Sale of former home and s 106A enforcement.

Background

A former de facto couple separated years earlier. The Applicant, self-represented, came to Court well after the ordinary time limit to seek a property adjustment. The pool was simple on paper but heavy in lived reality: a single former home registered in the Respondent’s name, a mortgage, and a significant vehicle finance debt connected to the Respondent. The children were living primarily with the Applicant. The Respondent did not meaningfully participate in the proceedings. The Court was required to decide whether it should even allow the claim to be heard out of time, and, if so, how to divide the net sale proceeds of the former home in a way that was just and equitable.

Core Disputes and Claims

The dispute had two tightly linked legal questions.

First, leave out of time: whether the Court should grant the Applicant leave under s 44(6) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to apply for property orders after the standard limitation period, on the basis that hardship would be caused to the Applicant or a child if leave were refused.

Second, the substantive outcome if leave was granted: how the Court should assess legal and equitable interests, whether it was just and equitable to make any property adjustment, and what final percentage division should be ordered after evaluating contributions and future needs, including the Applicant’s ongoing care of the younger children.

The Applicant sought an outcome broadly favouring him, proposing a division in the range of 70 to 80 per cent, and practical machinery to ensure sale and compliance. The Respondent did not file responsive material and did not appear at the final hearing, leaving the Court to decide the application on the evidence before it.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The relationship began in the early 2000s and lasted for well over a decade. Four children were born during the relationship. The parties acquired a home during the relationship. The deposit for the purchase was sourced from the Respondent’s family side, derived from the sale of a property connected to the maternal grandmother. The home was later refinanced into a joint loan, with both parties as mortgagors, yet title remained in the Respondent’s name.

In day-to-day life, the relationship contained the ordinary markers of partnership: shared residence, shared parenting, shared obligations, and the grinding financial reality of servicing a mortgage while raising children. The Applicant’s evidence was that he worked consistently, while the Respondent’s employment was limited.

After separation in September 2015, the parties’ financial ties did not cleanly unwind. The former home remained a central point of vulnerability, not merely as an asset, but as an ongoing responsibility. A property can be both a lifeline and a trap: it carries the promise of stability, while also generating relentless liabilities in the form of mortgage repayments, rates, and maintenance. When cooperation breaks down, the same asset becomes a flashpoint for blame, fear, and delay.

Detail Reconstruction

The Applicant’s account described a relationship where the home was effectively the main asset, and the debts were the main shadow. A financed vehicle was connected to debt exposure that did not simply vanish upon separation. After separation, the Respondent’s engagement with financial responsibilities, on the Applicant’s case, deteriorated. The property was rented out for a period, yet mortgage payments fell into arrears. Rates accrued. Third parties began pursuing unpaid amounts. These are the moments where a dispute hardens: not when someone says they will not cooperate, but when a bank letter arrives, when a council arrears notice threatens enforcement, and when it becomes clear that a delay is no longer neutral but actively harmful.

The children’s living arrangements also shifted over time. The Applicant became the primary carer. In practical terms, that meant the Applicant was carrying the weekly costs that never appear in a title search: food, school needs, transport, and the constant small expenses that make parenting a full-time financial obligation even for a working parent.

Conflict Foreshadowing

The decisive moments were not theatrical. They were administrative, cumulative, and unavoidable: arrears increasing, credit pressure mounting, and the Applicant realising that informal arrangements were not resolving the risk. The litigation arose not because the parties wanted a legal fight, but because the Applicant needed a legal mechanism to convert a frozen asset into a workable future.

This is the first self-agency lesson embedded in the facts: where an asset is jointly burdened but not jointly managed, time does not heal the problem. Time compounds it.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

The Applicant relied on:

1. An Initiating Application seeking property orders and leave to apply out of time, supported by a Financial Statement and affidavit.

2. Evidence of the relationship duration and children, including the reality that the children were living with the Applicant and that parenting orders existed for time with the Respondent, though the children were not spending time with her in practice.

3. Evidence concerning the acquisition of the former home:

   • Purchase of the property during the relationship.
   • Deposit sourced from the Respondent’s side of the family.
   • Mortgage arrangements and later refinancing into a joint loan.
   • Title being held in the Respondent’s name.
4. Evidence of valuation:
   • A valuation of the home at approximately AUD $280,000, presented as a business record.
5. Evidence of liabilities:
   • Mortgage balance.
   • Rates arrears.
   • A vehicle finance debt of approximately AUD $27,000 connected to the Respondent’s vehicle history, left in the Applicant’s name and not repaid on the Applicant’s case.
6. Evidence of post-separation conduct and delay:
   • The Applicant’s explanation that he did not commence proceedings earlier because of pressure and assertions by the Respondent connected to the children and housing stability.
   • Efforts to negotiate.
   • The eventual trigger being third-party enforcement pressure regarding mortgage and rates.
7. Evidence of the Applicant’s present circumstances:
   • Income and expenses.
   • Ongoing responsibility for children.
   • The practical need for a sale and division to enable rehousing.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

The Respondent filed no substantive materials as ordered and did not appear at the final hearing. The Court therefore had no competing affidavit narrative, no alternative valuation, no alternative debt case, and no direct evidence of the Respondent’s financial circumstances.

This absence became a decisive evidentiary feature. The Court was not permitted to invent a defence. The Court could only decide on the evidence it had, while remaining alert to the limits of that evidence.

Core Dispute Points

1. Leave out of time:
   • Would refusal of leave cause hardship to the Applicant or children within s 44(6)?
   • Did the Applicant have a real probability of success, as required by the established approach?
   • Was the delay reasonably explained, and should discretion be exercised in favour of leave?
2. Just and equitable threshold:
   • Even though title was in the Respondent’s name, was it just and equitable to make property orders?
3. The pool and adjustments:
   • What comprised the pool: the former home, mortgage, and the vehicle debt.
   • How to assess contributions where the deposit came from the Respondent’s side, but income contributions and post-separation burden fell largely on the Applicant.
   • Whether and how to adjust for future needs, especially ongoing care of younger children.
4. Implementation:
   • What orders were necessary to achieve sale, prevent obstruction, and protect proceeds, including a s 106A mechanism and holding the Respondent’s share on trust.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavits do two jobs at once: they are evidence and they are a story told under oath, arranged to fit the legal tests the Court must apply.

In this case, the Applicant’s affidavit and supporting documents functioned as a bridge between lived experience and statutory criteria.

How Each Party Uses the Affidavit Form

Applicant’s Approach

The Applicant’s affidavit constructed a sequence designed to satisfy two different legal gates:

1. The gateway issue: leave out of time under s 44(6).
   • The affidavit needed to show hardship if leave was refused and a real probability of substantive success.
   • It therefore highlighted the children’s living arrangements, the property being the core asset, and the pressure of mortgage and rates arrears.
2. The substantive issue: the adjustment itself.
   • It needed to show contributions and future needs in a coherent way.
   • It therefore highlighted the deposit source, the Applicant’s work history, shared parenting during the relationship, the Applicant’s primary care after separation, and the debts.

Because the Applicant was self-represented, important material was also located across the Initiating Application and Financial Statement rather than being perfectly organised within the affidavit. That is a procedural reality: self-represented litigants often provide truthful information in a scattered form. A Court assessing credibility looks for internal consistency and plausibility, not perfect drafting.

Respondent’s Approach

The Respondent’s affidavit evidence was effectively absent. The lack of an affidavit is not merely a missing document. It is the loss of a structured opportunity to:

• Contest factual assertions.
• Offer alternative explanations for delay.
• Put forward a different contributions case.
• Provide evidence of hardship or future needs on the Respondent’s side.
• Offer a practical proposal for sale or retention.

Where a party does not participate, the boundary between untruths and facts shifts from a clash of versions to an assessment of whether the participating party’s evidence is credible and whether it is safe to act on it.

Strategic Intent Behind Procedural Directions About Affidavits

The Court made orders directing the Respondent to file material by specific dates. These directions serve multiple purposes:

• They protect procedural fairness by giving the Respondent a clear opportunity to be heard.
• They narrow issues before hearing.
• They avoid trial by surprise.
• They enable the Court to identify what is truly disputed.

In a de facto property matter, affidavits are not a formality. They are the blueprint for evidence. When a party ignores directions, they do not merely disobey a timetable; they surrender the best chance to influence findings.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before final determination, the Court made practical orders to move the matter forward, including:

• Orders for service to ensure the Respondent received notice and had an opportunity to participate.
• Orders listing the matter for mentions and then for final hearing.
• Orders requiring the Respondent to file responding materials by set dates.
• Orders permitting the Applicant to proceed on an undefended basis if the Respondent did not attend.
• Orders requiring the Applicant to obtain and file valuation evidence of the property.

These arrangements reflect an essential principle in family law litigation: the Court aims to decide disputes efficiently and fairly, but it cannot force a party to actively participate. It can, however, prevent non-participation from paralysing the proceeding.

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

Perspective

Objective third-party perspective.

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

There was no classic cross-examination showdown because the Respondent did not appear. The hearing instead became a structured judicial inquiry. The Court adopted a question-and-answer process to clarify gaps, test the Applicant’s evidence, and ensure the orders would be grounded in admissible material.

This is a distinct kind of courtroom pressure. When you are self-represented, the Court’s questions can feel like cross-examination, even though the Court is not an adversary. The Court is trying to make findings it can defend, which requires it to probe.

The Applicant’s evidence was tested through:

• Confirmation of key dates, including separation.
• Clarification of the asset pool and debt position.
• Clarification of the children’s living arrangements and practical care.
• Clarification of the reasons for delay in commencing proceedings.
• Clarification of what practical orders were sought and why.

Core Evidence Confrontation

The decisive evidence confrontation was between two realities:

• The legal formality: title was in the Respondent’s name.
• The equitable reality: both parties were mortgagors, the relationship was long, contributions were shared and unequal in different ways, and the Applicant was carrying the post-separation burden while caring for children.

The valuation evidence anchored the financial analysis. The mortgage and debt evidence anchored the risk picture. The parenting reality anchored the hardship analysis and future needs assessment.

Judicial Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning was disciplined: it first decided whether it could even hear the substantive claim out of time, and only then moved to the property adjustment analysis.

The Court applied the established twofold approach drawn from authority associated with Whitford v Whitford (1979) FLC 90-612, and confirmed that approach applies in de facto cases consistently with Gadzen v Simkin (2018) FLC 93-871.

The critical ratio-level statement, expressed through the authority quoted and applied, was that hardship in the relevant sense requires a real probability of success on the merits, and the Court must focus on hardship that would be suffered if leave were refused, not merely the loss of the right to sue.

Thus, on an application for leave … two broad questions may arise for determination. The first … is whether the court is satisfied that hardship would be caused … if leave were not granted … If the court is so satisfied, the second question arises. That is whether, in the exercise of its discretion, the court should grant or refuse leave to institute proceedings.

This statement was determinative because it structured the entire gateway decision. The Applicant did not need to prove the final property case at the leave stage, but he did need to show a real probability of success and a credible hardship consequence if the case could not proceed.

The Court then found the Applicant’s explanation for delay plausible in the context: self-representation, ongoing negotiations, pressures of primary care, and a delayed realisation of the seriousness of arrears exposure.

This is where self-agency becomes practical: the law recognises that real life can create delay, but it still demands an explanation. A party does not win leave by indignation. They win leave by evidence.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court granted leave to apply out of time under s 44(6) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

The Court ordered that the former home be placed on the market for sale, first by private sale and, if not sold within the required period, by public auction.

Upon completion of sale, sale expenses were to be paid first, then the mortgage and other encumbrances, and then the net balance was to be divided:

• 75 per cent to the Applicant.
• 25 per cent to the Respondent.

The Court also ordered:

• The Applicant had the sole right to occupy the property pending sale and must pay the mortgage and outgoings during that period.
• The parties held their interests in the property on trust pending sale, and neither party could further encumber the property without written agreement.
• A s 106A mechanism authorising the Applicant to execute documents on the Respondent’s behalf if she failed to sign what was required to give effect to the orders.
• The Respondent’s share of proceeds to be held on trust by the conveyancer or solicitor until collected.

These orders reflect a Court anticipating non-cooperation and building an enforcement pathway into the final orders so the outcome could be implemented in the real world.

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

Special Analysis

This decision carries jurisprudential value because it shows, in a compressed and practical form, how the Court:

• Applies the leave out of time test to de facto property matters using the Whitford structure and its emphasis on real probability of success.
• Maintains the Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108 requirement that the Court identify interests and decide whether an alteration is just and equitable, even where title is in one party’s name.
• Handles evidentiary scarcity caused by one party’s non-participation without abandoning rigour.
• Crafts orders designed to be executable where there is a high likelihood of obstruction or absence.

This is not merely a percentage case. It is a case about turning a stalled life position into a legally enforceable pathway, anchored in evidence, not resentment.

Judgment Points

1. The Court treated the leave application as a gateway requiring a structured legal test, not a sympathy exercise.
2. The Court assessed the Applicant’s prospects of success as strong, which is central to the hardship concept.
3. The Court treated the property as the sole meaningful asset and identified the pool with clarity.
4. The Court acknowledged the Respondent’s initial contribution through the deposit but placed it in time context, assessing contributions impressionistically.
5. The Court made a future needs adjustment reflecting the Applicant’s ongoing care of the younger children.
6. The Court designed orders for sale, trust holding, and s 106A execution to ensure practical implementation.

Legal Basis

The key statutory and authority framework included:

• Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 44(6): leave out of time where hardship would be caused to a party or a child if leave were refused.
• Whitford v Whitford (1979) FLC 90-612: the two-stage approach to hardship and discretion, and the requirement of a real probability of success.
• Gadzen v Simkin (2018) FLC 93-871: confirmation that the Whitford approach applies to de facto matters.
• Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108: the requirement to identify legal and equitable interests and determine whether it is just and equitable to make property settlement orders.
• Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 106A: authority for execution of documents where a party fails to sign.
• Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 75(2): future needs factors, applied by analogy in de facto property adjustment reasoning as part of the adjustment stage.

Evidence Chain

This case is a model of how conclusions are built as: conclusion equals admissible evidence plus statutory test.

The evidence chain supporting leave under s 44(6) included:

• Relationship duration and children.
• Current care arrangements with the Applicant as primary carer.
• The property being the main asset and the mortgage and rates arrears creating financial pressure.
• The Applicant’s explanation for delay: lack of representation, efforts to negotiate, pressures of parenting, and late awareness of seriousness of arrears.
• The substantive merits: contributions through income, mortgage reduction, and care responsibilities.

The evidence chain supporting the 75/25 outcome included:

• Deposit originating from the Respondent’s side, credited to the Respondent.
• The Applicant’s ongoing income contributions and apparent primary role in reducing mortgage exposure over time.
• The Respondent’s limited employment contribution on the available evidence.
• The vehicle finance debt associated with the Respondent’s conduct being a liability influencing the practical justice of division.
• The Applicant’s continuing care of two younger children as a future needs driver.
• The Respondent’s absence resulting in evidentiary lacunae, requiring the Court to do the best it could with the material available.

Judicial Original Quotation

The ratio-driving passages show how the Court linked the statutory test with the factual consequences.

The requirement that the court must be satisfied that hardship would be caused if leave were not granted implies that it must be made to appear to the court that the applicant would probably succeed, if the substantive application were heard on the merits. If there is no real probability of success, then the Court cannot be satisfied that hardship would be caused if leave were not granted.

This was determinative because it explains why the Court did not treat delay as the end of the story. Once the Applicant’s probability of success and hardship consequence were established, the discretion became a balancing exercise rather than a punitive one.

A second determinative passage shows the Court’s approach to future needs in a parenting reality:

What is beyond dispute, however, is that the [Applicant] continues to have the primary care for [the younger children] … He will have these responsibilities for years to come … I would assess the [Applicant’s] future needs … as requiring a 15 per cent loading in his favour.

This was determinative because it explains the movement from a contributions assessment to the final percentage. The Court did not stop at who paid what historically; it accounted for who will carry the burdens going forward.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The Respondent’s failure was not framed as moral blame. It was forensic.

1. Failure to participate meant no competing evidence:
   • No alternative explanation for the delay.
   • No alternative contributions narrative.
   • No evidence of Respondent’s present needs or hardship.
   • No dispute of valuation or pool composition.
2. Failure to comply with procedural directions narrowed the Court’s options:
   • The Court could not wait indefinitely for a party to engage.
   • The Court proceeded on an undefended basis after giving opportunity.
3. Failure to offer a practical pathway:
   • The case required implementable orders. The Respondent did not propose sale steps, refinancing steps, or a workable distribution mechanism.

The most important self-agency point is this: Courts decide cases on evidence, not on what might be true. If a party does not participate, they do not merely lose their voice; they lose the opportunity to shape the factual terrain on which the law is applied.

Disassembly of Judgment Basis Using the Five-Link Structure

Victory Point 1: The Applicant treated time as a legal problem, not merely an emotional grievance

Statutory Provisions:
– Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 44(6).

Evidence Chain:
– Separation date and filing date established the out of time problem.
– Evidence of children in the Applicant’s care and financial pressure supported hardship.

Judicial Original Quotation:
– The real probability of success requirement, quoted above.

Losing Party’s Failure:
– No evidence to counter hardship or probability of success.

Why it mattered:
A party cannot obtain property relief if the Court cannot hear the application. The Applicant’s success began with confronting the limitation issue directly and providing an explanation the Court could accept.

Self-agency translation:
If you are out of time, do not hide from the date. Build a factual explanation and connect it to hardship consequences.

Victory Point 2: The Applicant anchored the case to a simple, provable pool

Statutory Provisions:
– The property adjustment framework under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), applied through the Court’s established methodology, and the Stanford v Stanford just and equitable requirement.

Evidence Chain:
– Valuation evidence as a business record.
– Mortgage figures.
– Identification of the vehicle finance debt.

Judicial Original Quotation:
– The Court’s identification of the pool and exclusion of minor items that were not meaningful.

Losing Party’s Failure:
– No alternative valuation or debt position.

Why it mattered:
A case becomes winnable when the pool is clear. Complexity favours delay and dispute. Simplicity favours orders.

Self-agency translation:
Do not inflate your case with trivia. Prove the big numbers cleanly.

Victory Point 3: The Applicant’s credibility held under judicial questioning

Statutory Provisions:
– The leave test and discretionary factors.
– The Court’s general fact-finding obligations.

Evidence Chain:
– Consistent answers about separation, children, property, debts, and efforts to negotiate.
– Plausible narrative about delayed awareness and pressure points.

Judicial Original Quotation:
– The Court’s description of the Applicant’s demeanour and directness.

Losing Party’s Failure:
– Absence meant the Court had no reasoned alternative.

Why it mattered:
In self-represented matters, credibility often becomes the scaffolding holding the entire evidence structure up. The Court must be satisfied it is safe to act on the only narrative it has.

Self-agency translation:
Your strongest legal asset can be consistency. Tell the same truth the same way, and back it with documents.

Victory Point 4: The Court credited the Respondent’s initial deposit while still recognising time and overall contribution reality

Statutory Provisions:
– Contributions assessment methodology within the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) framework.

Evidence Chain:
– Deposit derived from the Respondent’s family.
– The length of time since acquisition.
– The Applicant’s income contributions and mortgage reduction over time.

Judicial Original Quotation:
– The Court’s assessment of contributions as impressionistic and the final 60/40 contribution split before adjustment.

Losing Party’s Failure:
– No evidence to elevate the deposit into a dominant claim overriding later contributions.

Why it mattered:
A deposit can be powerful, but it is not a permanent veto over later realities. The Court treated it as significant, but not decisive.

Self-agency translation:
If you made an early contribution, preserve evidence of it. If you carried later burdens, preserve evidence of them too. The Court compares the whole journey, not a single milestone.

Victory Point 5: The future needs adjustment reflected the lived economics of primary care

Statutory Provisions:
– Future needs factors, commonly expressed through s 75(2) considerations in analogous reasoning.

Evidence Chain:
– Primary care of younger children.
– Ongoing expenses.
– The practical difficulty of rehousing without equity.

Judicial Original Quotation:
– The 15 per cent loading in the Applicant’s favour.

Losing Party’s Failure:
– No evidence of Respondent’s competing needs, health issues, or capacity limits that might alter the adjustment.

Why it mattered:
A property settlement is not a history exam. It is a tool for fair transition. Where one party bears ongoing child-related responsibilities, the Court can shift percentages to reflect that.

Self-agency translation:
Parenting responsibilities are not only parenting facts. They are financial facts. Prove them.

Victory Point 6: The Court crafted enforcement-ready orders anticipating non-cooperation

Statutory Provisions:
– Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 106A.

Evidence Chain:
– Respondent’s repeated non-compliance with filing and attendance.
– Reasonable inference of unwillingness or inability to participate.

Judicial Original Quotation:
– The Court’s inference about non-participation and the practical orders requiring sale and trust holding.

Losing Party’s Failure:
– No conduct demonstrating cooperation; no alternative proposal for compliance.

Why it mattered:
Orders that cannot be implemented are not justice; they are paper. The Court designed a pathway that could still work even if the Respondent remained absent.

Self-agency translation:
Ask for orders that can actually happen. Think two steps ahead: what if the other party refuses?

Victory Point 7: The Applicant’s delay was explained in a way the Court could legally use

Statutory Provisions:
– s 44(6) hardship and discretion.
– The Whitford framework focusing on hardship consequences and probability of success.

Evidence Chain:
– Pressure about children and housing.
– Attempts to negotiate.
– Third-party enforcement pressures revealing urgency.

Judicial Original Quotation:
– The Court’s acceptance of the explanation and its view that even if generous, the merits and needs supported leave.

Losing Party’s Failure:
– No evidence that delay caused prejudice to the Respondent that would make leave unjust.

Why it mattered:
Delay is not automatically fatal. Unexplained delay is dangerous. Explained delay, connected to hardship and merits, can be forgiven.

Self-agency translation:
If you delay, own it. Explain it. Link it to real consequences.

Victory Point 8: The final 75/25 outcome flowed transparently from the Court’s staged reasoning

Statutory Provisions:
– The Court’s staged approach: identify interests, decide just and equitable, assess contributions, then adjust.

Evidence Chain:
– 60/40 contributions assessment.
– 15 per cent adjustment for future needs.
– Practical realities of children’s care.

Judicial Original Quotation:
– The Court’s final just and equitable conclusion supporting 75/25.

Losing Party’s Failure:
– No competing staged analysis offered.

Why it mattered:
A strong judgment reads like a chain. Each link is visible. That makes it durable on appeal and understandable to litigants.

Self-agency translation:
When you present your case, present it in stages. Do not argue percentages first. Argue the method, then the numbers.

Reference to Comparable Authorities

Whitford v Whitford (1979) FLC 90-612: Established the two-stage approach for leave applications under limitation provisions: hardship requiring a real probability of success, followed by a discretion stage considering the circumstances of delay and fairness.

Gadzen v Simkin (2018) FLC 93-871: Confirmed the Whitford approach applies to de facto property matters, reinforcing that the gateway test is the same in substance.

Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108: Reaffirmed that before altering property interests, the Court must identify existing legal and equitable interests and decide whether it is just and equitable to make an order adjusting those interests.

Implications

1. Time limits are real, but they are not destiny.
   If you are out of time, your task is not to panic. Your task is to build an evidence-based story of hardship and merit that the Court can lawfully accept. Self-agency begins when you turn a problem into a structured application.

2. Parenting responsibility is legal weight, not only personal sacrifice.
   If you are the primary carer, that reality can carry genuine force in property outcomes. Do not treat your workload as invisible. Document it. Make it legible to the Court.

3. A house is not just an asset. It is a system of risks.
   Mortgage arrears and rates debts do not wait for emotions to settle. If you sense the property is drifting into danger, early legal steps can be protective rather than aggressive.

4. Participation is power.
   If you want the Court to consider your needs, your contributions, your health, or your capacity, you must place evidence before the Court. Silence rarely protects you. It usually empties the record.

5. Ask for orders that can survive non-cooperation.
   Self-agency is not only arguing your position. It is anticipating implementation. Practical machinery like sale pathways and s 106A-style enforcement can be the difference between a win and a stalemate.

Q&A Session

Question 1: Why did the Court allow the Applicant to apply out of time after so many years?

Because the Court was satisfied that refusing leave would cause hardship to the Applicant or children, and that the Applicant had a real probability of success on the merits. The Court also accepted that the delay was reasonably explained in the context of self-representation, attempts to negotiate, parenting pressures, and later awareness of the financial risks.

Question 2: Why did the Court order sale instead of transfer of the home to one party?

Because sale is often the most enforceable solution where cooperation is unlikely, refinancing capacity is uncertain, and the Court needs a clean mechanism to convert an asset into distributable proceeds. The orders were designed to be executable and to prevent the asset being trapped by non-cooperation.

Question 3: How did the Court reach 75/25 rather than 60/40?

The Court first assessed contributions at 60/40 in the Applicant’s favour, acknowledging the Respondent’s initial deposit but also recognising the Applicant’s ongoing contributions and the evidence available. The Court then made a further adjustment for future needs, principally driven by the Applicant’s continuing care of the younger children, resulting in a final division of 75/25.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype

Family Law: De facto property settlement application brought out of time, with sale orders and enforcement mechanisms.

Judgment Nature Definition

Final Judgment.

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

Execution Instruction

The following legal tests are for reference only. Outcomes depend on the specific facts, evidence quality, and procedural posture. Courts tend to determine these issues by evaluating the whole of the evidence, and different factual matrices can produce materially different results.

① De Facto Relationships & Matrimonial Property & Parenting Matters (Family Law)

Core Test: Existence of De Facto Relationship under s 4AA

Duration of the relationship:
– Courts commonly examine whether the relationship had sufficient length and stability. A longer relationship tends to strengthen the conclusion that it was de facto in character, but duration is assessed alongside all other factors.

Nature and extent of common residence:
– Did the parties live together?
– Was cohabitation continuous or intermittent?
– Did they maintain a shared home base as a couple in practice?

Whether a sexual relationship exists:
– The presence or absence of a sexual relationship can be relevant, but it is not determinative and must be considered with the full context of the relationship.

Degree of financial dependence or interdependence:
– Did one party support the other financially?
– Did they pool income or share liabilities?
– Did they operate joint accounts or shared budgeting?

Ownership, use and acquisition of property:
– Was property purchased during the relationship?
– Was title held jointly or separately?
– Who serviced loans and outgoings?
– How was property used in daily life?

Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life:
– Did the parties plan their lives together in a way that resembles a partnership?
– Did they present as a family unit?
– Were future plans made jointly?

The care and support of children:
– Were children raised as part of the relationship?
– Who performed daily care?
– How were responsibilities shared?

Reputation and public aspects of the relationship:
– How did friends, family, and the community perceive the relationship?
– Did the parties present themselves publicly as a couple?

Any additional circumstances of the relationship:
– Courts can consider other features showing the practical reality of a couple relationship, such as shared routines, shared decision-making, and the integration of lives.

Overall evaluation:
– The Court adopts a composite picture approach, examining the totality of the evidence rather than treating any single factor as decisive.

Property Settlement: The Four-Step Process

Identification and Valuation:
– Identify the legal and equitable interests.
– Determine the net asset pool: assets minus liabilities.
– Obtain reliable valuation evidence for major assets.
– Confirm liabilities with statements and proof of balances.

Assessment of Contributions:
– Financial contributions:
– Initial contributions such as deposits.
– Contributions during the relationship such as wages used to service loans.
– Post-separation payments that preserve an asset.
– Non-financial contributions:
– Renovations and labour improving property.
– Management of household affairs enabling the other to earn income.
– Contributions to the welfare of the family:
– Homemaker duties.
– Parenting responsibilities.
– Timing and weight:
– Early contributions may be significant but can be assessed in the context of the whole relationship duration and later contributions.

Adjustment for Future Needs using s 75(2) factors:
– Age and health.
– Income earning capacity and actual income.
– Care of children and ongoing parental responsibilities.
– Commitments necessary to support oneself and children.
– Standard of living that is reasonable in the circumstances.
– Any other factor the Court considers relevant on the evidence.

Just and Equitable:
– A final check: is the proposed division fair in all the circumstances?
– This includes examining whether orders are necessary and whether they would achieve a practical and fair transition.

Parenting Matters: Section 60CC Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Primary considerations:
– Benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents.
– Need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, with protection from harm given greater weight where in conflict.

Additional considerations:
– Views expressed by the child, considered in light of maturity and understanding.
– Nature of the relationship between the child and each parent.
– Capacity of each parent to provide for the child’s needs, including emotional and practical needs.
– Practical difficulty and expense of the child spending time and communicating with a parent.
– Any family violence, risk factors, and the impact on parenting capacity.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Execution Instruction

When statutory pathways are limited, incomplete, or strategically risky, parties may consider equitable and common law doctrines. These doctrines tend to be determined by the Court through careful analysis of promises, reliance, conscience, and fairness. The following are general guidance only.

Promissory and Proprietary Estoppel

Clear and unequivocal promise or representation:
– Did one party make a clear representation about property ownership or financial outcome?

Detrimental reliance:
– Did the other party act in reliance in a way that caused disadvantage, such as spending money improving property or giving up opportunities?

Unconscionability:
– Would it be against conscience for the promising party to resile from the representation given the reliance and detriment?

Potential outcome:
– Equity may restrain a party from departing from the promise, or may support a remedy reflecting reliance-based justice.

Unjust Enrichment and Constructive Trust

Benefit received:
– Did one party receive a financial benefit or labour benefit at the other’s expense?

Absence of juristic reason:
– Was there no proper legal basis for the retention of the benefit without compensation?

Against conscience:
– Would retention without remedy be against conscience in the circumstances?

Potential outcome:
– Restitutionary orders, or a declaration of beneficial interest, can be considered where the facts and fairness support that pathway.

Procedural Fairness in Family Law Case Management Context

Opportunity to be heard:
– Did each party have proper notice and opportunity to file evidence?

Fair process:
– Courts typically ensure directions, service, and listing steps are documented so that non-participation is a choice, not an accident.

Practical note:
– If a party believes they missed a hearing due to genuine technical or notice issues, early application and evidence may be critical to obtain relief, though outcomes depend on the procedural history.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

Limitation period:
– De facto property applications are subject to a standard time limit after separation, and a party generally must seek leave to proceed out of time if that limit has expired.

Procedural compliance:
– Orders to file affidavits, financial disclosure, and valuation evidence are standard and non-compliance tends to elevate risk.

Implementation feasibility:
– Where a party has a history of non-participation, the Court commonly prioritises executable orders.

Exceptional Channels

Leave out of time under s 44(6):
– Where hardship would be caused to a party or a child if leave were refused, the Court may grant leave, particularly where there is a real probability of success and the delay is plausibly explained.

Short relationship exceptions in other contexts under s 90SB:
– Less than two years of cohabitation can still support jurisdiction where there is a child, where substantial contributions exist and serious injustice would result without an order, or where the relationship is registered. These are assessed on evidence and are not automatic.

Practical suggestion:
Do not abandon a potential claim simply because the clock has run. Where hardship is real and the merits are strong, the law provides a doorway, but it must be opened with evidence.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

This case may be cited in submissions involving:
– Leave applications under s 44(6) in de facto property matters, especially where the applicant is the primary carer and the pool is simple but implementation risk is high.
– The application of the Whitford structure to assessing hardship and discretion, together with references to Gadzen v Simkin.
– The importance of enforceable sale and implementation orders where non-cooperation is likely.

Citation Method

As positive support:
– Where your matter involves significant delay but strong merits and child-related hardship, this authority can support a submission that leave is appropriate where hardship would be caused by refusal and there is a real probability of success.

As a distinguishing reference:
– If an opposing party cites this authority, distinguish by pointing to differences such as a shorter relationship, absence of child-related hardship, weaker prospects of success, or evidence of prejudice caused by delay.

Anonymisation Rule

In any public discussion or written submissions intended for broad dissemination, use procedural titles such as Applicant and Respondent, and comply with Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 121 restrictions regarding identification.

Conclusion

This judgment shows that self-agency in family law is built from evidence, structure, and implementation thinking: identify the legal gateway, prove the hardship, prove the merits, and ask for orders that can actually be carried out. The golden sentence is this: 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 (Sheppard & Reeves [2022] FedCFamC2F 317), 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.