Andreopolis and Beazley and Anor - [2007] FamCA 1319

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ANDREOPOLIS & BEAZLEY AND ANOR

[2007] FamCA 1319

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTION – Business restrained from commencing proceedings and continuing any proceedings against the husband in relation to the recovery of property

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT:

Mr Andreopolis

1^ST RESPONDENT:	Ms Beazley
2^ND RESPONDENT:	R Corporation Pty Ltd

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales

FILE NUMBER:

SYF

2624

2004

DATE DELIVERED:

17 October 2007

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

JR Loughnan

HEARING DATE:

17 October 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr King & Ms Valoski

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Willis & Bowring

COUNSEL FOR THE 1^ST RESPONDENT:

SOLICITOR FOR THE 1^ST RESPONDENT:

Karras Partners

SOLICITOR FOR THE 2^ND RESPONDENT:

Prime Lawyers

Orders

Until further order the business known as R Corporation Pty Ltd ABN … be restrained from taking any further step in proceedings commenced by it in the … Local Court against the husband on 9 July 2007 save to have those proceedings discontinued or adjourned.
Within one month from today's date and subject to the assessment process, the respondent company pay to the solicitors for the applicant the costs of the applicant of and incidental to the appearance today, those costs to be as agreed between the parties or as assessed by a taxing officer.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYF2624/2004

MR ANDREOPOLIS

Applicant

And

MS BEAZLEY
1^st Respondent

And

RODIN CORPORATION PTY LTD

2^nd Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These are interlocutory proceedings in the context of significant proceedings, among other things, for property settlement between parties to a marriage. An amended application in a case was filed on 13 August 2007.
There was a previous hearing in relation to that application, but as to one issue, which is the prayer found in para 6 of the application, the matter was adjourned to today's date for interim hearing. The order sought there by the husband is that the business known as R Corporation Pty Ltd be restrained from commencing proceedings and continuing any proceedings against him in relation to the recovery of property including but not limited to the motor vehicle identified as a four-wheel drive motor vehicle, registration number …. There is an affidavit to the effect that another registration number referred to in the documents is incorrect.
There is no evidence of it, but I am told that it is an agreed fact that proceedings have been commenced in the Local Court by R Corporation Pty Ltd. That is said by an officer of the company. There is no reference in the husband's affidavit, I do not think, to any particular proceedings number. I do not think that matters much. It is an agreed fact that proceedings have commenced by way of statement…

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 Andreopolis and Beazley and Anor

Details

AGLC: Andreopolis and Beazley and Anor [2007] FamCA 1319
Case: [2007] FamCA 1319
Decision Date: 17 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Andreopolis, sought orders against the respondent, R Corporation Pty Ltd, and the second respondent, Beazley, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned proceedings commenced by R Corporation Pty Ltd in the Local Court against the husband of the applicant. The applicant sought to restrain R Corporation Pty Ltd from continuing those proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant an injunction to restrain R Corporation Pty Ltd from pursuing its claim in the Local Court against the applicant's husband. This involved considering the circumstances under which a party might be prevented from continuing litigation already commenced in another jurisdiction.

The Court ordered that R Corporation Pty Ltd be restrained from taking any further steps in the Local Court proceedings against the husband, other than to discontinue or adjourn them, until further order. The Court also ordered that R Corporation Pty Ltd pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the appearance before the Court, to be agreed or assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Until further order the business known as R Corporation Pty Ltd ABN … be restrained from taking any further step in proceedings commenced by it in the … Local Court against the husband on 9 July 2007 save to have those proceedings discontinued or adjourned.

Within one month from today's date and subject to the assessment process, the respondent company pay to the solicitors for the applicant the costs of the applicant of and incidental to the appearance today, those costs to be as agreed between the parties or as assessed by a taxing officer.

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.