FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BABRAY & BABRAY | [2019] FCCA 3514 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Property application – whether s 79(2) satisfied – Stanford & Stanford – where applicant engaged in property settlement proceedings with former de facto partner at time cohabitation with respondent commenced – where property settlement with former de facto partner resulted in applicant acquiring property, subject to mortgage, and assuming obligation to pay monies – where property so acquired sold – where applicant extends mortgage and borrows monies from respondent’s parents so as to discharge obligation to pay former de facto partner monies due under settlement – where applicant applies net equity with further borrowings from respondent’s parents to purchase motor vehicle – where respondent brings substantial property at commencement of relationship – consideration of contributions during and post separation – whether just and equitable to make order under s 79 – applicable principles – whether adopting alternative approach any order should be made adjusting property interests – application dismissed. FAMILY LAW – Parenting application – where parties agreed substantially all final parenting orders – where parties in contest over changeover and who may attend to collect or deliver the child – where child spends alternate on weekends with father from Friday night to Sunday – where applicant agrees to undertake all driving throughout football season but seeks that respondent except responsibility for 25% of annual driving – orders for changeover made. |
| Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss.140, 144 |
| Applicant: | MR BABRAY |
| Respondent: | MS BABRAY |
| File Number: | MLC 5055 of 2017 |
| Judgment of: | Judge A Kelly |
| Hearing date: | 26 March 2019 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 30 April 2019 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 9 December… |
Continue reading BABRAY & BABRAY
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- BABRAY & BABRAY [2019] FCCA 3514
- Case
- [2019] FCCA 3514
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether it was just and equitable to make an order adjusting the property interests of the parties under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), considering the applicant's contributions and financial activities. In relation to parenting, the court needed to make orders regarding the arrangements for the child's changeovers, addressing the specific concerns raised by the parties regarding driving responsibilities and authorised attendees.
On the property application, the court applied the principles established in *Stanford & Stanford*, considering the applicant's contributions during and after the relationship, and whether any adjustment to property interests would be just and equitable. The court found that the applicant's financial activities, including the acquisition and sale of property and subsequent borrowings, did not warrant an adjustment of property interests under section 79. Consequently, the application for an adjustment of property interests was dismissed. For the parenting application, the court made orders varying existing arrangements, specifying that the applicant father would be responsible for collecting and delivering the child during the Australian Rules football season, while the respondent mother would be responsible for deliveries on alternate Friday evenings for the remainder of the year. The court also authorised the applicant's eldest child to undertake changeovers upon reaching the age of 22.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Paragraphs (4), (8) and (9) of the Order made on 26 March 2019, by consent, be varied in accordance with paragraphs (2)-(3) of this Order.
2.
Save as otherwise as may be agreed in writing by the parties, for the purposes of changeover, during:
(a) the period of the Australian Rules football season (as determined by the fixture of the Australian Football League and excluding all finals), the applicant father collect and deliver the child, X born on … 2013 (Child) at the commencement and conclusion of his time to be spent with the applicant; and
(b) the remainder of each year, on each Friday evening on alternate weekends the respondent mother deliver the Child to the applicant’s home at the commencement of his spend time.
3.
In addition to the persons who are authorised by paragraph (9) of the Order made on 26 March 2019, the applicant’s eldest child be authorised to undertake changeovers upon her attaining the age of 22 years.
4.
The application for an adjustment of property interests 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.