Baghti and Baghti

[2011] FamCA 357

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BAGHTI & BAGHTI [2011] FamCA 357

FAMILY LAW - interim property

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Baghti

RESPONDENT: Mr Baghti

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2786 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 10 May 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Watts J

HEARING DATE: 10 May 2011

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Hodgson

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: J Kartsounis & Co

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Barber Lawyers

Orders

PENDING FURTHER ORDER IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The husband in his capacity as a director of O Pty Ltd do all acts and things and cause the said company to be restrained from selling, encumbering, assigning or disposing or in any way dealing with the motor vehicle, registration number … .

2. Within 48 hours the husband cause the said motor vehicle together with the keys and combination lock to be delivered to the wife’s residence.

3. The husband advise the wife in writing of the combination lock in respect of the motor vehicle at the time he delivers the motor vehicle.

4. Thereafter the wife have exclusive use of the motor vehicle.

5. The husband cause the company to maintain the registration and insurance in respect of the motor vehicle.

6. Within 14 days the husband file and serve a response to the application filed by the wife for primary relief in respect of alteration of property interests and to comply with the rules in relation to filing a financial statement. 

7. Each party’s costs of today be reserved.

It is noted that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Baghti & Baghti is approved pursuant to s 121 (9) (g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2786 of 2010

Ms Baghti

Applicant

And

Mr Baghti

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The application that the mother makes by way of Application in a Case filed 6 April 2011 is for a series of orders that require the husband in his capacity as director of O Pty Limited to transfer a motor vehicle, … , to the mother and to be restrained from selling that motor vehicle.

2. The husband has filed an affidavit which has set out some financial material in relation to the company but he has failed to comply with the rules in relation to filing a financial statement so the financial information I have about his circumstances is very incomplete.  There are four children of the marriage, they are currently aged 13, 10, 6 and 4.  The parties have only recently separated in February after a 14 year relationship.  The husband is the sole director of O Pty Limited. Early this year the husband caused the company to purchase a motor vehicle, registration number … . I emphasise that that was only very early this year, a few months ago.  At that time the husband seemed to be of the view that the operations of the company could more than handle the acquisition of that motor vehicle.

3. Since the separation the husband has removed the motor vehicle from the wife and has retained the motor vehicle since that time. The husband, on the wife’s evidence, has basically said that she can walk or catch public transport. I accept the wife required the use of a motor vehicle to transport the children to and from school. The father’s offer or suggestion which she should be able to use the ute which I am told on occasions takes one pallet at a time to a particular location is a disingenuous offer. There is no evidence before me that the children could safely be conveyed in that motor vehicle. There is a difficulty with the health of at least one of the children and it may, on the wife’s evidence, be necessary at short notice to take him to hospital.

4. The wife gives evidence that on 31 March she saw the motor vehicle being advertised for sale.  She is concerned that the husband will dispose of the motor vehicle and it certainly seems to be his intention.

5. The wife gives the usual undertaking as to damages.

6. I am told that the overall assets of the parties, excluding any value in the company, are in the approximate sum of $500,000. The home is worth about $800,000 and there is a mortgage of a bit over $300,000.

7. The husband has indicated that he may have liquidity problems currently in the company and he is entitled of course in those circumstances to bring an application in the ordinary course and ask for an order that the wife join in some type of refinance or arrangement of an additional facility that might ease those liquidity problems should he establish that they in fact exist.  I am not able on the material that the husband has presented today to be able to be at all confident that there are liquidity problems in the company.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Watts delivered on 10 May 2011.

Associate: 

Date:  18 May 2011