Adamson & Korac (No 3) - [2023] FedCFamC1F 188

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Adamson & Korac (No 3) [2023] FedCFamC1F 188

File number: SYC 4996 of 2019

Judgment of: CAMPTON J

Date of judgment: 8 March 2023

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Final orders made by consent – Where the Court is satisfied the proposed orders are just and equitable – Order made pursuant to s 90AE of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 90AE

Cases cited:
Adamson & Korac [2022] FedCFamC1F 528

Adamson & Korac (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 638

Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108; [2012] HCA 52

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 20

Date of hearing: 8 March 2023

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Sceric

Solicitor for the Applicant: Farrar Gesini Dunn

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms Torrisi, Family Law Practice Australia

Counsel for the Second and Thirds Respondent: Ms Reid

Solicitor for the Second and Thirds Respondent: Lander & Rogers
ORDERS

SYC 4996 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MS ADAMSON

Applicant

AND:
MR KORAC

First Respondent

C PTY LTD

Second Respondent

MS B

Third Respondent

order made by:

CAMPTON J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 MARCH 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Minute of Order executed by each of the parties to the proceedings, dated 8 March 2023, shall be Exhibit 1.
2.The joint Balance Sheet filed 7 March 2023 shall be Exhibit 2.
3.By consent, orders be made in accordance with Exhibit 1 dated 8 March 2023.
4.Save and except as provided for by way of these orders, all outstanding applications and responses thereto are dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Adamson & Korac (No 3) has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CAMPTON J:

These are proceedings for property adjustment arising from the breakdown of a marriage between Ms Adamson (“the wife”) and Mr Korac (“the husband”) pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).
The husband and wife were married in 1999 and separated in either late December 2017 or early January 2018. They have not yet divorced. They have two children together, Ms X, who is now 20 years of age, and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adamson & Korac (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Adamson & Korac (No 3) [2023] FedCFamC1F 188
Case: [2023] FedCFamC1F 188
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the proceedings of Adamson & Korac (No 3), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) dealt with a property adjustment dispute arising from the breakdown of the marriage between Ms Adamson and Mr Korac. The case involved complex disputes about the value and ownership of property held by the parties, including a mortgage broking franchise. The central issue was whether the husband's relinquishment of the franchise to a former employee, Ms B, constituted a sham transaction designed to defeat the wife's property adjustment claim. Both parties agreed that a property pool existed, but they disagreed significantly on its value and composition.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the proposed consent orders were just and equitable under section 90AE of the Family Law Act 1975, considering the length of the relationship, the contributions made by each party, and the breakdown of the relationship. The Court had to determine whether the compromise reached by the parties through alternate dispute resolution was a fair and equitable resolution of their disputes, especially in light of the wife's financial distress and the husband's substantial income from corporate interests.

The Court found that the compromise reached by the parties was just and equitable. The submissions from both parties and their legal representatives indicated that the compromise was a sensible and appropriate resolution, allowing the parties to move on with their lives. The Court was satisfied that the proposed orders met the requirements set out by the High Court in Stanford v Stanford, as they considered the length of the relationship, the contributions made by the parties, and the breakdown of the relationship. The Court also noted the parties' concession that there should be an adjustment of property and their agreement on the division of certain funds and indemnities. As a result, the Court made orders in accordance with the Minute of Order executed by the parties.

Orders