Betro & Grima - [2022] FedCFamC1F 307

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Betro & Grima [2022] FedCFamC1F 307

File number(s): SYC 1826 of 2021

Judgment of: HARPER J

Date of judgment: 10 May 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Applicant Husband seeking variation or discharge of orders made previously – Respondent Wife opposes any change to existing orders – Where previous orders were made by consent requiring wife to provide consent for company expenditure – Where the husband is the sole director and shareholder of the business – Where the wife argues she was wrongfully removed as director in 2021 – Husband argues wife has been obstructive and unreasonably withheld consent in relation to payments – Where wife argues her refusal to pay remaining invoices is by reason of failure of husband to provide sufficient information concerning expenditure – Where court is satisfied it has jurisdiction under s 114(1)(e) of the Act to make orders of an injunctive nature – Where parties and their child rely upon the revenue streams created by business activities conducted by the husband – Where previous orders prove to be an ongoing source of friction between parties – Consent orders have become unworkable – Orders made for variation of consent orders – Husband obligated to provide the wife with 48 hours’ notice of proposed payment of expenses – Residual issue of disclosure – Order for disclosure made.

Legislation:
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 180, 181, 182

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 114(1)(e)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act2021 (Cth) ss 52 and 149

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Pt 13

Cases cited: Nevins & Urwin [2022] FedCFamC1A 57

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 38

Date of hearing: 29 April 2022

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Gould

Solicitor for the Applicant: Clinch Long Woodbridge

The Respondent: Litigant in person
ORDERS

SYC 1826 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MR BETRO

Applicant

AND:
MS GRIMA

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

HARPER J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 MAY 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Discharge of Orders
1.Orders 1, 3, and 4 of the Orders dated 6 April 2021 be discharged.

Operation of the Businesses
2.Within seven days of the date of these orders, the wife cause the funds held in the Commonwealth Bank Account held in the name of B Pty Ltd as the Trustee for the B Trust, of which Ms Grima is the sole account holder, to be transferred into an account in the name of B Pty Ltd as the Trustee for the B Trust, of which Mr Betro is the sole account holder to be nominated within 48 hours of the date of these orders.
3.The husband provide to the wife the following information regarding the operation of B Pty Ltd and C Pty Ltd:
(a)Within 48 hours of payment on behalf of B Pty Ltd or C Pty Ltd being due, the following:
(i)A…

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 Betro & Grima

Details

AGLC: Betro & Grima [2022] FedCFamC1F 307
Case: [2022] FedCFamC1F 307
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

These are property proceedings between Mr Betro and Ms Grima, a married couple who separated in March 2021. The husband is the sole director of B Pty Ltd, which holds property assets, while two other entities, J Company and K Company, conduct operations. The wife contends that she was wrongfully removed as a director of B Pty Ltd. The husband claims the wife has unreasonably withheld consent in relation to payments, while the wife argues that the husband has not provided sufficient information concerning expenditure. The husband proposes a variation of the consent orders made in April 2021, which required the parties to jointly make payments and restrained them from dealing with the assets of B Pty Ltd. The wife opposes any change to the existing orders. The court found the husband's proposal for a variation of the consent orders to be preferable. The court considered the husband's role as sole director and primary decision-maker for B Pty Ltd and the potential detriment to both parties if the existing orders continued to cause friction. The court also found that the wife's concerns about the husband sabotaging the business were not convincing. The court ordered the discharge of certain consent orders and imposed a regime requiring the husband to provide the wife with 48 hours’ notice of proposed payments, along with specific disclosure requirements. The court also noted that valuable items in a safe deposit box should remain there pending final resolution of the proceedings.

The court's decision addresses the ongoing dispute between the parties and seeks to balance the husband's role as the primary decision-maker for B Pty Ltd with the wife's concerns about the business's operations. The new regime aims to provide the wife with sufficient information about proposed payments while allowing the husband to manage the business effectively. The court also made specific disclosure orders to address the husband's concerns about the wife's lack of disclosure. The decision ultimately aims to protect the interests of both parties and their child, who rely on the revenue streams generated by the business activities of B Pty Ltd.

Orders