Becker and Vale and Ors - [2016] FCCA 3290

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BECKER & VALE & ORS

[2016] FCCA 3290

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Property – Application for Property Adjustment Orders – Application for joinder of third parties.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rule 2001, rr.11.01, 11.02

Cases cited:

A Bank & Coleiro & Anor [2011] FamCAFC 157

Wayne & Dillon & Anor [2008] FamCAFC 204

Applicant:

MS BECKER

First Respondent:

MR VALE

Proposed Third Parties:

MR C VALE;

(OMITTED) PTY LTD; and
(OMITTED) PTY LTD

File Number:

BRC 387 of 2016

Judgment of:

Judge Lapthorn

Hearing date:

27 October 2016

Date of Last Submission:

27 October 2016

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

20 December 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Dr Brasch QC

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Evans & Company Family Lawyers

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Ms Oakley

Solicitors for the First Respondent:

Quinn & Scattini

Counsel for the Proposed Third Parties:

Ms McDiarmid

Solicitors for the Proposed Third Parties:

Springwood Lawyers

ORDERS

The Application to join Mr C Vale as a party to the proceedings be dismissed.
The Application to join (omitted) Pty Ltd (ACN (omitted)) as a party to the proceedings be dismissed.
The Application to join (omitted) Pty Ltd ((omitted)) as a party to the proceedings be dismissed.
I certify for Counsel.
That the proposed third parties file written submissions in relation to costs by 4.00pm 27 January 2017.
That the respondent file written submissions in relation to costs by 4.00pm 3 February 2017.
That the applicant file written submissions in relation to costs by 4.00pm 17 February 2017.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Becker & Vale & Ors is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRC 387 of 2016

MS BECKER

Applicant

And

MR VALE

First Respondent

MR C VALE;
(OMITTED) PTY LTD; and
(OMITTED) PTY LTD

Proposed Third Parties

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

By way of an Application in a Case filed 19 August 2016 the applicant, Ms Becker, sought orders, inter alia, for the joinder of Mr C Vale, (omitted) Pty Ltd (“(omitted) Pty Ltd”), and (omitted) Pty Ltd (“(omitted)”) as parties (“the proposed third parties”) to the substantive proceedings for property adjustment orders. This application was amended on 18 October 2016.
The applicant is 60 years of age and the respondent is 74. They commenced to live together in a de facto relationship in 1995 and separated on 21 December 2015. The substantive proceedings currently before the court were commenced by the Applicant filing an Initiating Application on 18 January 2016.
Mr C Vale is the son of the respondent, Mr Vale. He is the sole director of (omitted) Pty Ltd and (business omitted). In January 2016 the respondent appointed Mr C Vale as the (occupation omitted) for (omitted) Pty Ltd (“(omitted) Pty Ltd”). This role was previously undertaken by the applicant. Upon his appointment to the role, (omitted) Pty Ltd was appointed as an agent of (omitted) Pty…

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 Becker and Vale and Ors

Details

AGLC: Becker and Vale and Ors [2016] FCCA 3290
Case: [2016] FCCA 3290
Decision Date: 20 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Becker and Vale and Ors*, heard before Judge Lapthorn, the applicant sought to join Mr C Vale and two companies, (omitted) Pty Ltd and (omitted) Pty Ltd, as third parties to the proceedings. The precise nature of the underlying dispute between the original parties was not detailed, but the central issue before the court concerned the joinder of these proposed third parties.

The court was required to determine whether it was appropriate to grant the applications to join Mr C Vale and the two companies as third parties to the existing litigation. This involved considering the legal tests and principles governing the joinder of additional parties in Australian court proceedings, particularly in circumstances where their involvement might be considered necessary or desirable for the just and convenient determination of the dispute.

Judge Lapthorn dismissed all applications to join the proposed third parties. While the specific reasoning for this dismissal was not elaborated upon in the provided text, the outcome indicates that the court found insufficient grounds to permit their joinder. The court then made orders regarding the filing of written submissions on the issue of costs by the applicant and the proposed third parties, indicating that the question of costs would be determined following further submissions.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application to join Mr C Vale as a party to the proceedings be dismissed.

The Application to join (omitted) Pty Ltd (ACN (omitted)) as a party to the proceedings be dismissed.

The Application to join (omitted) Pty Ltd ((omitted)) as a party to the proceedings be dismissed.

I certify for Counsel.

That the proposed third parties file written submissions in relation to costs by 4.00pm 27 January 2017.

That the respondent file written submissions in relation to costs by 4.00pm 3 February 2017.

That the applicant file written submissions in relation to costs by 4.00pm 17 February 2017.

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.