BALDINI & BALDINI - [2020] FamCA 137

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BALDINI & BALDINI

[2020] FamCA 137

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application for property settlement orders pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Whether just and equitable to alter property interests and rights – Stanford v Stanford (2012) 293 ALR 70 considered – Consideration of factors under s 79 and s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the parties’ contributions, as at the date of trial, are assessed as being equal – Consideration of Kennon & Kennon – Where the Kennon claim is not made out – Where it is just and equitable for the assets to be divided equally between the parties.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75(2), 79

Keating and Keating (2019) FLC 93-894
Kennon and Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757
Spagnardi and Spagnardi [2003] FamCA 905
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 293 ALR 70

APPLICANT:

Mrs Baldini

RESPONDENT:

Mr Baldini

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

552

2015

DATE DELIVERED:

5 March 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Stevenson J

HEARING DATE:

14-18 October 2019 and 12 December 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Dr Barnett

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Rossi Simicic Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Christie

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

DGB Lawyers

Order

Within 28 days of the date of date of these Orders each of the parties do all things necessary to effect the transfer to the wife of the whole of the husband's right title and interest in the property situate at and known as J Street, Suburb B in the State of New South Wales and being the land comprised in title reference … ("the J Street Property").
Within 28 days of the date of these Orders, the husband pay to the wife a sum of $140,545.
Pending payment by the husband to the wife of such sum of $140,545 he is restrained, other than for the purpose of compliance with Order 2, from withdrawing, dissipating or disposing of:
3.1      ANZ term deposit #…16
3.2      ANZ term deposit #…44
3.3      ANZ progress saver account #…56
3.4      EE Company, BB Company, HH Limited, GG Company and Westpac shares.
Simultaneously with payment by the husband to the wife of the sum of $140,545 both parties do all things necessary to transfer to the husband the whole of the wife's interest in the properties situate at and include 7 units at K Street, L Town in the State of New South Wales and being the land contained in title references 7 Units Strata Plan … ("the L Town properties").
The wife indemnify the husband against all liabilities currently owing or accrued in respect of the J Street Property.
The husband indemnify the wife against all liabilities currently owing or accrued in respect of the L Town properties.
The husband do all things necessary to transfer to the wife the whole of his interest in the funds contained in ANZ Bank accounts #…91, #…41, #…54 and #…62 and Westpac Bank account #…11.

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 BALDINI & BALDINI

Details

AGLC: BALDINI & BALDINI [2020] FamCA 137
Case: [2020] FamCA 137
Decision Date: 5 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Baldini & Baldini*, Stevenson J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered a dispute between two parties, Baldini and Baldini, concerning the interpretation and enforcement of a deed of settlement. The core of the disagreement revolved around whether a particular payment obligation under the deed had been discharged.

The primary legal issue before the Court was to determine the proper construction of clause 3(a) of the deed of settlement and, consequently, whether the respondent had fulfilled its obligations under that clause. This involved an analysis of the language used in the deed and the surrounding circumstances to ascertain the parties' intentions at the time of its execution.

Stevenson J applied established principles of contractual interpretation, emphasizing that the meaning of a contract is to be determined by what the language used conveys to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge reasonably available to the parties. The Court found that the plain meaning of clause 3(a) required a specific type of payment to be made, and that the respondent's actions did not satisfy this requirement. The Court concluded that the respondent had not discharged its obligation under clause 3(a) of the deed.

Orders