Bilic & Bilic - [2022] FedCFamC2F 1234

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Bilic & Bilic [2022] FedCFamC2F 1234

File number(s): SYC 6206 of 2018

Judgment of: JUDGE MORLEY

Date of judgment: 12 September 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – property – application for adjustment of property pursuant to section 79 – short marriage – overwhelming contributions by Husband – payments by Wife to Husband – dispute about effect of those payments – Court finds payments amounted to ‘board’ rather than contribution to mortgage repayments – Court finds it is not just and equitable to make an order for the adjustment of property.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75, 79, 79A, 90XZD, 117.

Cases cited:
Anson & Meek [2017] FamCAFC 257

Chancellor & McCoy [2016] FamCAFC 256

Dickons & Dickons [2012] FamCAFC 154

Fielding & Nichol [2014] FCWA 77

Fields & Smith [2015] FamCAFC 57

Fontana & Fontana [2018] FamCAFC 63

Grier & Malphas (2017) 55 Fam LR 107

Hickey & Hickey & Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia [2003] FamCA 395

Holland & Holland [2017] FamCAFC 166

Logan & Logan [2013] FamCAFC 151

Perras & Perras [2021] FamCAFC 109

Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 189

Date of last submissions: 7 May 2021

Date of hearing: 15 February 2021

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Kaiti

Solicitor for the Applicant: Lovemore Lawyers

Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms Rusiti

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Synergy Legal

Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Litigant in Person
ORDERS

SYC 6206 of 2018

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS BILIC

Applicant

and:
MR BILIC
First Respondent

AND:
MS A BILIC

Second Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE MORLEY

DATE OF ORDER:

12 SEptember 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Amended Initiating Application filed by the Applicant Wife on 5 April 2019 is dismissed except in relation to order 8 in relation to costs.
2.Should either party seek to press the costs application contained in their moving document, that party is to file and serve:
(a)A minute of order setting out the quantum of costs sought (including the basis for that quantum);
(b)Any affidavit/s or evidence in support of the application; and
(c)Written submissions in support of the costs application,

by no later than 4:00PM on 30 September 2022.
3.Any written submissions in reply to any costs application are to be filed and served by no later than 4:00PM on 14 October 2022.
4.All applications in relation to costs only are adjourned to Chambers on 17 October 2022.

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).

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 Bilic & Bilic

Details

AGLC: Bilic & Bilic [2022] FedCFamC2F 1234
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 1234
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This is a final property settlement proceeding between the Applicant, Ms Bilic, the Respondent, Mr Bilic, and the Second Respondent, the Husband’s mother, Ms A Bilic. The Wife seeks a property adjustment in her favour under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (Act). The Wife claims that she contributed to the mortgage repayments, household expenses, and the purchase of household appliances. The Husband and Second Respondent seek dismissal of the Wife’s application with costs. The Court considered the evidence and submissions of the parties, and found that the Wife did contribute to the household expenses and the purchase of household appliances, but those contributions did not amount to contributions to the mortgage repayments. The Court held that it was not just and equitable to make a property adjustment order in favour of the Wife. The Court dismissed the Wife’s application and made orders for costs.

Orders