ALDRIDGE & MAZZOTTI - [2009] FamCA 1048

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ALDRIDGE & MAZZOTTI

[2009] FamCA 1048

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Cross-vested jurisdiction from the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) – domestic relationship property – jurisdiction to deal with property situated in New South Wales (NSW) – whether superannuation can be treated as property or a financial resource under the Domestic Relationships Act 1994 (ACT)

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) s 117(1)
Domestic Relationships Act 1994 (ACT) ss 11(1), 12(1), 12(2), 15(1), 19(2)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4, 75(2), 79(1), 79(1B), 90MC(1), 90MT(1), 96AA
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) ss 5(1), 13
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross‑Vesting) Act 1993 (ACT) ss 5(1), 13
Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW)

Champion v Smith [2007] ACTSC 44
Ferris v Winslade (1998) 22 FamLR 725
Gyselman & Gyselman (1992) FLC 92-279
NHC & RCH [2004] FamCA 633
Pastern & Pastern [2007] FamCA 620
Prymas v Whittaker [2006] ACTSC 48
Steinbrenner & Steinbrenner [2008] FamCAFC 193

APPLICANT:

Ms Aldridge

RESPONDENT:

Mr Mazzotti

FILE NUMBER:

CAF 262 of 2005

DATE DELIVERED:

5 November 2009

PLACE DELIVERED:

Canberra

JUDGMENT OF:

Faulks DCJ

HEARING DATE:

27-28 November 2006;
26-27 February 2007;

31 July 2007;
Written submissions of the applicant 31 July 2007;
Written submissions of the respondent 29 October 2009;
Written submissions of the respondent 12 August 2009;
Written submissions of the applicant 26 August 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Tonkin

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Elrington Boardman Allport

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Nash

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Dobinson Davey Clifford Simpson

Orders

That the respondent, Mr Mazzotti, will pay the sum of $95, 500 to the applicant, Ms Aldridge, within ninety (90) days of the date of delivery of this judgment.
That the applicant’s application for a departure order for child assessment under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) is dismissed.
That the applicant’s application for a lump sum departure order for child support under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) is dismissed.
That the proceedings for the property matters are removed from the active cases list.
That all material produced subpoena which did not become the subject of exhibits will be returned by the Court to the persons producing it as soon as practicable.
That any material produced subpoena which became an exhibit will be returned by the Court at the expiration of the appeal period to the person producing it. Any material produced by a party which became the subject of an exhibit will be returned by the Court to the party at the expiration of the appeal period.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Aldridge & Mazzotti is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: CAF262 of 2005

MS ALDRIDGE

Applicant

And

MR MAZZOTTI

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Foreword

This case concerned both property and children’s proceedings between the applicant, Ms Aldridge, and the respondent, Mr Mazzotti.[1] The children’s proceedings have since been re-opened 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 ALDRIDGE & MAZZOTTI

Details

AGLC: ALDRIDGE & MAZZOTTI [2009] FamCA 1048
Case: [2009] FamCA 1048
Decision Date: 5 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Aldridge & Mazzotti*, heard before Faulks DCJ, the dispute concerned financial matters between the parties, including applications relating to child support and property settlement. The applicant, Ms Aldridge, sought orders for a departure from the standard child support assessment, including a child assessment and a lump sum departure order. The respondent, Mr Mazzotti, was ordered to pay a sum of money to Ms Aldridge.

The court was required to determine whether to grant Ms Aldridge's applications for departure orders under the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth). These applications sought to depart from the usual method of child support assessment, specifically requesting a child assessment and a lump sum departure order. The court also had to consider the property matters between the parties.

Faulks DCJ dismissed Ms Aldridge's applications for both a child assessment departure order and a lump sum departure order under the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth). The reasoning for these dismissals is not detailed in the provided text. However, the court ordered Mr Mazzotti to pay Ms Aldridge the sum of $95,500 within ninety days of the judgment. Furthermore, the proceedings concerning property matters were removed from the active cases list. The court also made orders regarding the return of material produced by subpoena.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the respondent, Mr Mazzotti, will pay the sum of $95, 500 to the applicant, Ms Aldridge, within ninety (90) days of the date of delivery of this judgment.

That the applicant’s application for a departure order for child assessment under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) is dismissed.

That the applicant’s application for a lump sum departure order for child support under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) is dismissed.

That the proceedings for the property matters are removed from the active cases list.

That all material produced subpoena which did not become the subject of exhibits will be returned by the Court to the persons producing it as soon as practicable.

That any material produced subpoena which became an exhibit will be returned by the Court at the expiration of the appeal period to the person producing it. Any material produced by a party which became the subject of an exhibit will be returned by the Court to the party at the expiration of the appeal period.

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.