Bhagat & Sandhu (No 5) - [2025] FedCFamC1F 298

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Bhagat & Sandhu (No 5) [2025] FedCFamC1F 298

File number: SYC 806 of 2020

Judgment of: SCHONELL J

Date of judgment: 8 May 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Slip rule – Application to vary order of the Court under rule 10.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Where the applicant sought Order 2(a) made 9 April 2025 be amended due to a mathematical error – Where the respondent conceded that there was an error in the calculation of the liabilities – Where the respondent sought an adjustment to the final orders given a reduction in a bank account to be retained by the respondent- Where apart from the limited power arising under rule 10.13 the Court is functus officio– Where the respondent’s oral application to vary the orders is dismissed.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VIII

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 10.13

Cases cited:
Bailey v Marinoff (1971) 125 CLR 529; [1971] HCA 49

DJL v Central Authority (2000) 201 CLR 226; [2000] HCA 17

Noetel and Quealey (2005) FLC 93-230; [2005] FamCA 677

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 16

Date of hearing: 5 May 2025

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Katsinas

Solicitor for the Applicant: First Choice Family Lawyers

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Bevan, Sarah Bevan Family Lawyers
ORDERS

SYC 806 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MR BHAGAT

Applicant

AND:
MS SANDHU

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

SCHONELL J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Order 2(a) made 9 April 2025 be amended pursuant to Rule 10.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) to provide for the husband to pay the wife $57,931.68.
2.The wife’s oral application to vary the orders is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Bhagat & Sandhu has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SCHONELL J:

On 9 April 2025 the Court made final orders pursuant to Part VIII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”)…

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 Bhagat & Sandhu (No 5)

Details

AGLC: Bhagat & Sandhu (No 5) [2025] FedCFamC1F 298
Case: [2025] FedCFamC1F 298
Decision Date: 8 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Bhagat and Ms Sandhu appeared before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in the context of an ongoing family law matter. The central issue in this case was an application by Mr Bhagat to amend a previous court order due to an arithmetic error. Additionally, Ms Sandhu sought a variation to the final orders because of a decrease in the balance of a bank account that was to be retained by her. The court was required to determine whether it had the jurisdiction to amend the orders beyond the limited scope permitted under Rule 10.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

The court addressed the legal issues by first examining the nature of the application under Rule 10.13, which allows for the correction of clerical or arithmetical errors in court orders. The respondent conceded the presence of an error in the calculation of liabilities, thus supporting the amendment of the order. However, the court also considered Ms Sandhu's request for an adjustment to the final orders based on the reduction in the bank account balance. The court found that, aside from the limited corrective powers provided under Rule 10.13, it was functus officio and lacked the authority to modify the final orders. Consequently, the court dismissed Ms Sandhu's application to vary the orders.

The court's decision was to amend Order 2(a) made on 9 April 2025 to reflect the correct amount of $57,931.68 that Mr Bhagat should pay to Ms Sandhu, in accordance with Rule 10.13. However, the court refused to grant Ms Sandhu's request to adjust the final orders due to the decrease in the bank account balance, as this was beyond the scope of the court's authority under Rule 10.13. The court's orders were recorded as follows: the specified order was amended to correct the arithmetic error, and Ms Sandhu's application to vary the final orders was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 806 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MR BHAGAT

Applicant

AND:

MS SANDHU

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

SCHONELL J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Order 2(a) made 9 April 2025 be amended pursuant to Rule 10.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) to provide for the husband to pay the wife $57,931.68.

2. The wife’s oral application to vary the orders is dismissed.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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.

File number:	SYC 806 of 2020
Judgment of:	SCHONELL J
Date of judgment:	8 May 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Slip rule – Application to vary order of the Court under rule 10.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Where the applicant sought Order 2(a) made 9 April 2025 be amended due to a mathematical error – Where the respondent conceded that there was an error in the calculation of the liabilities – Where the respondent sought an adjustment to the final orders given a reduction in a bank account to be retained by the respondent- Where apart from the limited power arising under rule 10.13 the Court is functus officio– Where the respondent’s oral application to vary the orders is dismissed.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VIII Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 10.13
Cases cited:	Bailey v Marinoff (1971) 125 CLR 529; [1971] HCA 49 DJL v Central Authority (2000) 201 CLR 226; [2000] HCA 17 Noetel and Quealey (2005) FLC 93-230; [2005] FamCA 677
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	16
Date of hearing:	5 May 2025
Place:	Sydney
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Katsinas
Solicitor for the Applicant:	First Choice Family Lawyers
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms Bevan, Sarah Bevan Family Lawyers

SYC 806 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MR BHAGAT Applicant
AND:	MS SANDHU Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	SCHONELL J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 MAY 2025