Belmonte and Borghi

[2019] FamCA 150

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BELMONTE & BORGHI [2019] FamCA 150

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SUBPOENA OBJECTION – Application for Review of Registrar’s order – Where Registrar granted leave for access to documents produced on subpoena for which Objections were filed – Where Application for Review dismissed – Where costs reserved to final hearing.

Baumann and Ors & Rushbrooke and Anor [2016] FamCA 905

APPLICANT: Mr Belmonte

RESPONDENT: Ms Borghi

FILE NUMBER: PAC 2904 of 2018

DATE DELIVERED: 18 March 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Foster J

HEARING DATE: 19 February 2019

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms El Ali of Thurlows Family Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Diaz of KPL Lawyers

Orders

1. That the Application filed 6 December 2018 seeking review of the Registrar’s Orders made 30 November 2018 is dismissed.

2. Costs of and incidental to the application reserved to final hearing.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Belmonte & Borghi has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 2904 of 2018

Mr Belmonte

Applicant

And

Ms Borghi

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The primary proceedings are proceedings for property adjustment under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) commenced by the husband by application filed 27 June 2018.

2. The application asserts that the parties were married in 2002.

3. There are two children of the parties’ relationship now aged nearly 16 and 14.

4. The applicant husband seeks orders for the sale and division of the sale proceeds of a property jointly owned by the parties at Suburb C.

5. On 23 October 2018 the husband filed an amended application seeking similar property orders but in addition seeking:

   a)a declaration that the parties’ marriage solemnised in Italy in 2002 be declared a valid marriage, or in the alternative;

   b)a declaration pursuant to section 90RD of the Act that the parties were in a de facto relationship from 1996 to February 2017.

6. The respondent wife filed a Response on 25 October 2018 seeking orders that, in summary, provide:

   a)That the wife’s application be dismissed with costs, or in the alternative;

   b)That there be a declaration that the parties were in a de facto relationship from 2001 to 2007.

7. On 25 October 2018 Hannam J made trial directions as to the threshold issue of jurisdiction either by way of marriage or the existence of a de facto relationship such as to attract jurisdiction. The matter was anticipated to take two…