Acton & Burton

Case [2015] FamCA 469


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ACTON & BURTON [2015] FamCA 469
FAMILY LAW – CHILD SUPPORT – INTERIM APPLICATION FOR DEPARTURE – S116, S117 - Application refused
Babbit & Babbit [2011] FamCAFC 151
Black & Kellner (1992) FLC 92-287
Gyselman (1992) FLC 92-279
In the Marriage of Scott (1994) FLC 92-457
Jacks & Parker (2011) FLC 93-462; [2011] FamCAFC 34
Luton & Lessels (2002) 210 CLR 333
Saberton & Saberton [2013] FamCAFC 89
Scott v Stauder (unreported, Family Court of Australia, Kay J, 20 November 1996)
Weir & Weir (1993) FLC 92-338
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) ss 4, 114, 116, 117, 118
APPLICANT: Ms Acton
RESPONDENT: Mr Burton
FILE NUMBER: BRC 9435 of 2012
DATE DELIVERED: 22 June 2015
PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane
PLACE HEARD: Brisbane
JUDGMENT OF: Hogan J
HEARING DATE: 4 May 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Shoebridge
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Murdoch Lawyers
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Naughton from Rice Naughton, as town agents for Blanchfield Nicholls Partners

Orders

  1. The Application for interim relief as contained in the Amended Initiating Application filed 9 March 2015 is dismissed.

  2. In the event that either party seeks an order that the other pay the costs of and incidental to the interim application heard on 4 May 2015:

    (a)any such party shall file and serve brief written submissions in support of such application for costs within fourteen (14) days of today; and

    (b)the party against whom an order for costs is sought shall file and serve within a further fourteen (14) days thereafter any brief written submissions in answer to the submissions filed and served by the party seeking costs; and

    (c)the party seeking an order for costs shall file and serve any brief further written submissions within seven (7) days of its service, strictly in reply to the submissions served by the party against whom an order for costs is sought,

    and any such application for costs shall be considered in Chambers. 

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Acton & Burton has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 9435 of 2012

Ms Acton

Applicant

And

Mr Burton

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The Applicant seeks[1] that the Court determine her interim Application for a departure[2] from the administrative assessment of child support for the parties’ three children. She also proposes that:

    a)the Court order[3] that the Respondent’s child support income for the purposes of child support assessment is $177,073.00 per annum[4]– the consequence of such an order would be that the Respondent’s child support amount would be about $37,186.00 per annum or about $715.11 per week; and

    b)the Court further order that such deemed income apply to all child support assessments conducted between 2 April 2014 and 12 January 2022.

    [1]          As outlined in the Amended Initiating Application filed 9 March 2015.

    [2] Pursuant to s 116(1)(b) of the Child…

Continue reading Acton & Burton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Acton & Burton [2015] FamCA 469
Case
[2015] FamCA 469
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Acton & Burton*, Hogan J of the Supreme Court of Victoria considered an application for interim relief. The specific nature of the dispute between the parties, Acton and Burton, is not detailed in the provided text, beyond the fact that an "Amended Initiating Application" was filed on 9 March 2015, and an interim application was heard on 4 May 2015.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the interim relief sought by the applicant. The Court was required to determine if the circumstances warranted the imposition of interim measures pending the final resolution of the substantive dispute.

Hogan J dismissed the application for interim relief. The Court's reasoning for this decision is not elaborated upon in the provided text. However, the orders indicate a process for dealing with any subsequent applications for costs related to the interim application, allowing for written submissions from both parties before a final determination is made in Chambers.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Application for interim relief as contained in the Amended Initiating Application filed 9 March 2015 is dismissed.

2.

In the event that either party seeks an order that the other pay the costs of and incidental to the interim application heard on 4 May 2015:

(a) any such party shall file and serve brief written submissions in support of such application for costs within fourteen (14) days of today; and

(b) the party against whom an order for costs is sought shall file and serve within a further fourteen (14) days thereafter any brief written submissions in answer to the submissions filed and served by the party seeking costs; and

(c) the party seeking an order for costs shall file and serve any brief further written submissions within seven (7) days of its service, strictly in reply to the submissions served by the party against whom an order for costs is sought,

and any such application for costs shall be considered in Chambers.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.