Artinos & Artinos (No 3) - [2023] FedCFamC1F 85

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Artinos & Artinos (No 3) [2023] FedCFamC1F 85

File number(s): MLC 4132 of 2020

Judgment of: STRUM J

Date of judgment: 7 February 2023

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Partial property settlement – Where husband consents to a payment to wife by way of partial property settlement – Where husband also seeks a payment to him by way of partial property settlement to equalise parties’ positions – No updated Financial Statement filed by husband for over one year – Mere equalisation no basis for partial property settlement - Where wife seeks orders regarding ongoing financial disclosure of business bank accounts by way of “read only” computer access – Where the wife seeks injunctions restraining the husband from dealing with business bank accounts outside of the ordinary course of business – Undertakings previously given by husband to similar effect – No breach of undertakings - Whether the balance of convenience is met – Injunction granted in relation only to one entity.

Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 5.09, 6.06(7)

Cases cited:
M and DB (2006) FLC 93-293; [2006] FamCA 1380

Strahan & Strahan (Interim Property Orders) (2011) FLC 93-466; [2009] FamCAFC 166

Tsiang & Wu (2019) FLC 93-911; [2019] FamCAFC 128

Waugh & Waugh (2000) FLC 93-052; [2000] FamCA 1183

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 33

Date of hearing: 7 February 2023

Place: Melbourne

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms R. Stoikovska SC with Mr W. Newland

Solicitor for the Applicant: Blackwood Family Lawyers

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr T. North SC with Ms T. Borger

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Belleli King and Associates

Solicitor for the Second to Fourth Respondents: There were no appearances on behalf of the Second to Fourth Respondents
ORDERS

MLC 4132 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MS ARTINOS

Applicant

AND:
MR ARTINOS

First Respondent

C PTY LTD

Second Respondent

B PTY LTD (and another named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

order made by:

STRUM J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 FEBRUARY 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Order 12 of the orders made by the Hon Justice McEvoy on 3 December 2021 be discharged.
2.Save for compliance by the First Respondent with any order of the court, until further order, the First Respondent be and is hereby restrained by himself, his servants and agents, from withdrawing or transferring from (whether by internet transfer or otherwise), drawing down or otherwise dealing with Westpac account …82 in the name of E Pty Ltd E Trust.
3.Order 10 of the orders made by the Hon Justice McEvoy on 3 December 2021 be varied so that the reference to account number ending in …07 be deleted and replaced by is a reference to the account …82 in the name of E Pty Ltd E Trust.
4.Order 11 of the Orders made by the Hon Justice McEvoy on 3 December 2021 be varied so…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Artinos & Artinos (No 3) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] FedCFamC1F 85
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Artinos & Artinos (No 3), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) dealt with several interim applications filed by the husband, Mr Artinos, and the wife, Ms Artinos, in the context of their ongoing family law proceedings. The court was tasked with deciding on a partial property settlement, ongoing financial disclosure of bank accounts, and injunctions against the husband. The wife sought a partial property settlement of $420,000, while the husband consented to this amount but also sought a settlement of $300,000 to equalise their positions. The court dismissed the husband's application for an additional settlement, finding that mere equalisation was not a valid basis for such an order.

The wife also sought orders for "visibility" in relation to the C Group Pty Ltd bank accounts and injunctions restraining the husband from dealing with business bank accounts outside the ordinary course of business. The court found that the wife's application for viewing access to the bank accounts was premature, as she had not yet updated her Westpac Bank profile. However, the court did grant the wife's application for an injunction in relation to one entity, E Pty Ltd, finding that the balance of convenience favoured the wife at this stage of the proceedings.

The court also varied certain orders made on 3 December 2021 to reflect updated bank account numbers and granted the wife's application for "read only" computer access to the C Group entities' bank accounts under certain conditions. Finally, the court ordered the parties to prepare a minute of orders to reflect the agreed-upon and resolved matters.

Orders