ARKIN & BLASBERG

Case [2019] FamCA 476


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ARKIN & BLASBERG [2019] FamCA 476

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – APPLICATION TO VACATE TRIAL – respondent suffering malignant cancer – respondent asserting his case was not ready for commencement of trial fixed for 30 July 2019 – case previously fixed for trial on a date prior to 30 July 2019 – trial date for that hearing vacated – considerations of fairness or otherwise of forcing respondent on for trial when he was not ready – considerations of balancing the applicant’s interests in holding the respondent to the 30 July 2019 trial date – trial date vacated to 28 October 2019.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – APPLICATION FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION – relevant principles – detailed examination of equitable principles and their application to injunctions under s 114 of the Family Law Act.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – SUPERANNUATION – application to compel respondent to create fresh binding death benefit nominations in favour of the respondent’s legal personal representative so that the proceeds of the respondent’s superannuation were dealt with under his will rather than those proceeds being disbursed to the nominated beneficiaries – consideration of aspects of part VIIIB of the Family Law Act – consent orders on that point ultimately reached.

Corporations Act 2001, Ch 2D
Evidence Act 2004, s 79
Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001
Family Law Act 1975, ss 4, 79, 90XB, 90XC, 90XT, 90XV, 114
Family Law Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Act 2001
Family Law Rules 2004, r 16.03
Insurance Contracts Act 1984, s 48A
A v Hayden (1984) 156 CLR 532
AM & MM [2005] FamCA 443
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57
Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618
Bradto Pty Ltd v State of Victoria; Tymbook Pty Ltd v State of Victoria (2006) 15 VR 65
Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 38
Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148
Coghlan & Coghlan (2005) 33 Fam LR 414
Commonwealth v Clark [1994] 2 VR 333
Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394
Evans v Public Trustee (WA) (1991) 14 Fam LR 646
Gas & Fuel Corporation of Victoria v Wood Hall Ltd & Leonard Pipeline Contractors Ltd [1978] VR 385.
Grimshaw v Dunbar [1953] 1 QB 408
Grusauskas v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2005] VSCA 49
Hinckley & South Leicestershire Permanent Benefit Building Society v Freeman [1941] Ch 32
In the Marriage of Burridge (1980) 6 Fam LR 513
In the Marriage of Coulter (1989) 13 Fam LR 421
In the Marriage of Crapp (1979) 5 Fam LR 47
In the Marriage of Georgeson (1995) 19 Fam LR 302
In the Marriage of Harris (1991) 15 Fam LR 26
In the Marriage of Harrison (1996) 20 Fam LR 322
In the Marriage of…

Continue reading ARKIN & BLASBERG

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
ARKIN & BLASBERG [2019] FamCA 476
Case
[2019] FamCA 476
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of ARKIN & BLASBERG, the applicant and respondent were involved in family law proceedings. The primary dispute concerned an application to vacate a trial date previously fixed for 30 July 2019. The respondent sought this adjournment due to suffering from malignant cancer, asserting his case was not ready for trial on the scheduled date. This followed a previous vacation of an earlier trial date. The court was also required to consider an application for a mandatory injunction and issues relating to superannuation, specifically the respondent's request to compel the creation of fresh binding death benefit nominations.

The legal issues before the court included the fairness of proceeding with the trial given the respondent's medical condition and his assertion of unreadiness, balanced against the applicant's interest in the respondent being held to the existing trial date. The court also had to determine the principles applicable to mandatory injunctions under section 114 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and consider aspects of Part VIIIB of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) concerning superannuation and binding death benefit nominations.

Wilson J considered the competing interests of the parties. In relation to the trial date, the court acknowledged the respondent's serious illness and the potential unfairness of proceeding without adequate preparation. Balancing this against the applicant's right to have the matter resolved, the court ultimately vacated the trial date. Regarding the superannuation, consent orders were reached by the parties, addressing the respondent's application to have the proceeds of his superannuation dealt with under his will rather than disbursed to nominated beneficiaries. The court ordered that agreed minutes giving effect to these reasons for judgment were to be brought in by 4pm on 25 July 2019.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

By 4pm on 25 July 2019 the parties are to bring in agreed minutes that give effect to these reasons for judgment.

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.