Amato and Amato

Case [2013] FCCA 942


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AMATO & AMATO [2013] FCCA 942
Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Child maintenance – wife’s application for lump sum child maintenance where husband has ceased to be a resident of Australia or a reciprocating country for the purposes of child support – husband has failed to pay maintenance for the child since April 2012 – husband has failed to take part in these proceedings – orders made for husband to pay lump sum child maintenance.

Legislation:  
Family Law Act 1975, ss.66B, 66C, 66E,66H, 66J, 66K, 66P, 69E

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1980

Collins & Collins (1993) FLC 92-343
RNL & RHB [2005] FMCAfam 520
Bereat & Bereat [2010] FamCA 693
Applicant: MS AMATO
Respondent: MR AMATO
File Number: MLC 812 of 2010
Judgment of: Judge Bender
Hearing date: 18 July 2013
Date of Last Submission: 18 July 2013
Delivered at: Melbourne
Delivered on: 26 July 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Cash
Solicitors for the Applicant: Manby & Scott Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: NA
Solicitors for the Respondent: NA

ORDERS

  1. On or before 26 August 2013 the husband pay to the wife child maintenance for the child, X born (omitted) 1999 (“X”), in the sum of $76,200.00 by way of a lump sum payment.

  2. Order 6 of the orders made 22 May 2013 be dismissed.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT MELBOURNE

MLC 812 of 2010

MS AMATO

Applicant

And

MR AMATO

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. This is the wife’s application seeking the husband pay child maintenance for the parties’ son, X born (omitted) 1999 (“X”).

  2. These proceedings were commenced by the wife’s Initiating Application filed 13 December 2012.  On 24 June 2013 the wife filed an Amended Initiating Application seeking orders in the following terms:

    a)The husband pay to the wife child maintenance for X at the rate of $20,000.00 per annum from 1 July 2012 until 8 November 2017.

    b)The child maintenance be capitalised and paid to the wife by way of one lump sum payment of $90,000.00 within 28 days of such an order being made.

    c)The husband pay the wife’s costs on an indemnity basis.

  3. At the hearing of this matter the wife was given leave to amend her application such that she now seeks an order that the husband pay child maintenance as from 13 December 2012, being the date she filed the Initiating Application.

  4. The husband has failed to participate in these proceedings.

  5. The wife’s application was first listed on 21 December 2012.  On that occasion the husband failed to appear.  An order was made adjourning the matter to 20 May 2013 and it was noted in the orders made that day that the husband had been taken to have been served with the wife’s application for child maintenance on 20 December 2012.  The wife’s then solicitors were ordered to…

Continue reading Amato and Amato

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
AMATO & AMATO [2013] FCCA 942
Case
[2013] FCCA 942
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Amato and Amato*, heard by Judge Bender, the dispute concerned child maintenance. The husband was ordered to pay a lump sum of $76,200.00 to the wife for the maintenance of their child, X, by 26 August 2013.

The court was required to determine the appropriate quantum of child maintenance payable by the husband to the wife.

The court ordered the lump sum payment after considering the relevant circumstances. The court also dismissed Order 6 of previous orders made on 22 May 2013.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

On or before 26 August 2013 the husband pay to the wife child maintenance for the child, X born (omitted) 1999 (“X”), in the sum of $76,200.00 by way of a lump sum payment.

2.

Order 6 of the orders made 22 May 2013 be dismissed.

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.