ANOLICK & ANOLICK - [2019] FamCA 100

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ANOLICK & ANOLICK

[2019] FamCA 100

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – application to adjourn final hearing to enable realisation of assets and restructuring of business activities.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – court’s power to adjourn proceedings - whether adjournment is in the interest of justice – where adjournment granted

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Doctors v van Leeuwen (1990) FLC 92-148.

Waters v Waters (1981) FLC 91-019

APPLICANT:

Mr Anolick

RESPONDENT:

Ms Anolick

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

5060

2012

DATE DELIVERED:

25 February 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Bennett J

HEARING DATE:

27 September 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr G Dickson QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Lander & Rogers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

The Hon. Mr Ian Coleman SC with Mr G Thompson

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Rickards Legal

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT

(1)The final hearing set down to commence on 29 October 2018 be and is hereby adjourned and in lieu thereof this matter be set down for final hearing before me on 17 June 2019 estimated to take 5 to 7 days (“the final hearing”).
(2)This matter be listed for mention before me on 25 February 2019 at 9.00 am for the purpose of checking on the readiness of the matter for trial and to make any further directions for trial.
(3)The husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to today fixed in the sum of $15,000 such payment to be made by not later than 22 October 2018.
(4)Otherwise the Application in a Case of the husband filed 24 September 2018 be and is hereby dismissed.

AND IT IS NOTED that the lawyers for the wife will communicate with my Associate – email … – within 7 days as to whether the wife requires reasons for my decision this day.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 5060 of 2012

Mr Anolick

Applicant

And

Ms Anolick

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This matter came before me on 27 September 2018 on the husband’s application to adjourn the final hearing on financial matters which was due to commence on 29 October 2018.
Mr Dickson QC appeared for the husband and the Hon. Mr Coleman SC appeared with Mr Thompson for the wife.
The matter proceeded by way of…

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 ANOLICK & ANOLICK

Details

AGLC: ANOLICK & ANOLICK [2019] FamCA 100
Case: [2019] FamCA 100
Decision Date: 25 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Anolick & Anolick*, the husband sought an adjournment of the final property settlement hearing to allow for the realisation of assets and restructuring of business activities. The wife opposed the adjournment. The matter came before Bennett J.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether an adjournment of the final hearing was in the interests of justice, considering the husband's application and the wife's opposition. The court also had to determine the appropriate orders to make regarding the hearing date and costs.

Bennett J reasoned that an adjournment was warranted in the interests of justice to allow the husband the opportunity to pursue a more advantageous realisation of assets, which would ultimately benefit both parties by potentially increasing the pool of available funds. The court considered the potential prejudice to the wife but found that the proposed delay was not so significant as to outweigh the potential benefits of the restructuring. The court ordered that the final hearing, initially set for 29 October 2018, be adjourned and relisted for 17 June 2019, with a mention date set for 25 February 2019 to check trial readiness. The husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs of the adjournment application fixed at $15,000, payable by 22 October 2018. The husband's application filed on 24 September 2018 was otherwise dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS ORDERED THAT

(1) The final hearing set down to commence on 29 October 2018 be and is hereby adjourned and in lieu thereof this matter be set down for final hearing before me on 17 June 2019 estimated to take 5 to 7 days (“the final hearing”).

(2) This matter be listed for mention before me on 25 February 2019 at 9.00 am for the purpose of checking on the readiness of the matter for trial and to make any further directions for trial.

(3) The husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to today fixed in the sum of $15,000 such payment to be made by not later than 22 October 2018.

(4) Otherwise the Application in a Case of the husband filed 24 September 2018 be and is hereby dismissed.

AND IT IS NOTED that the lawyers for the wife will communicate with my Associate – email … – within 7 days as to whether the wife requires reasons for my decision this day.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.