The High Court has refused a respondent’s preliminary application to dismiss property and related claims brought by a woman with whom he had a long relationship and three children. The court did not decide whether her claims were true or determine any property rights.
Mr Justice Henry Abbott delivered the judgment on 4 May 2007. The preliminary issue had been directed for hearing in October 2006 and was heard on 24 April 2007. The respondent argued that the proceedings disclosed no cause of action, were vexatious and were an abuse of process, including because they duplicated other proceedings.
The applicant and respondent began living together around February 1978, according to the judgment, and their relationship broke down around October 2004. They were both married to other people throughout the relationship. They had three children together, born in 1978, 1980 and 1983. The judgment records that the applicant also had a child from her marriage and the respondent had two.
The applicant alleged that the couple had agreed to marry in 1977, that he gave her an engagement ring, and that they acquired properties in joint names and established companies together. The respondent denied those allegations. He also asserted that there had been no engagement, that she had been paid as a PAYE worker, that she had made declarations of trust concerning the properties, and that her claim was fraudulent. These matters were not resolved at this preliminary hearing.
The applicant’s 2005 special summons sought orders concerning the parties’ respective interests in properties, relief under the Family Law Act 1981, and periodic maintenance for a dependent child. The judge considered whether the claim should be struck out under Order 19, Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and whether it should be dismissed as an abuse of process under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
For the purpose of the strike-out application, the judge had to assume the applicant’s case could be factually established. He concluded it was not so clearly frivolous or vexatious that it should be dismissed under the rule. On abuse of process, he found the respondent had not met the demanding burden of showing that the case would inevitably fail, whatever might emerge at discovery or trial.
The court therefore dismissed the respondent’s application on the preliminary issues. The judgment expressly left the underlying factual disputes and claims undecided.