MEDICUS MARCH 2016

F A M I L Y L AW

Locks, blocks and smoking barrels

Who gets to exclusively occupy the former family home during a separation? Framy Anne Browne examines the options

W hen a marriage or cases, parties continue to live separately under the same roof whilst they finalise their financial and property settlement and parenting arrangements. This can be an economically viable and convenient situation. However, it is not necessarily suitable in cases where the relationship is particularly de facto relationship breaks down, in some

the home, effectively locking the other party out. Some have gone so far as to make an application for a violence restraining order so as to prevent the other party from attending the former home. This approach may not be effective and at times, only serves to inflame the situation further and prevent the parties from having any fruitful negotiations. More often than

Framy Anne Browne

not, this approach leads to urgent and expensive court proceedings and/or the involvement of the police.

acrimonious and the parties are fighting. In cases like these, it is common for one party to occupy the former family home and the other party to seek alternative accommodation. Unless there is a court order stating otherwise, both parties to a marriage who are registered owners are entitled to live in the family home following separation. Where parties are disputing who should live in the former family home, it often plays out that one party will change the locks to

If an application for exclusive occupation is needed, one can be made to the Family Court of Western Australia (the Court) by way of an injunction. Whilst there are a number of factors, the Court uses guidelines when determining whether exclusive occupation should be granted. These guidelines are not exhaustive and they should not be treated as laying

56 M E D I C U S M A R C H 2 0 1 6