FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BLOOMFIELD & GRAINGER AND ANOR | [2018] FamCA 36 |
| FAMILY LAW – JURISDICTION – Initiating Application filed by creditor in 2014, seeking to set aside asserted financial agreement entered into between First Respondent and wife – in November 2017, First Respondent asserts that the agreement is not a financial agreement as that term is defined in the Family Law Act1975 Mr S and seeks declaration that the agreement is not a financial agreement as defined by the terms of s 90C of the Act, that the Initiating Application is dismissed and that the Applicant creditor pay costs – Applicant seeks leave to amend Initiating Application to add alternative claim pursuant to s 228 of the Property Law Act1974 (Qld) – Application for leave to amend Initiating Application refused – Initiating Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Bloomfield |
| 1st RESPONDENT: | Mr Grainger |
| 2nd RESPONDENT: | The Bankrupt Estate of Ms Grainger |
| FILE NUMBER: | BRC | 89 | of | 2014 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 31 January 2018 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Brisbane |
| PLACE HEARD: | Brisbane |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Hogan J |
| HEARING DATE: | 12 December 2017 and by receipt of submissions filed by the Applicant on 21 December 2017 and the First Respondent on 9 January 2018 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr Jones |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Tucker & Cowen Solicitors |
| COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT: | Mr Looney QC |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT: | Morgan Conley Solicitors |
| COUNSEL FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT: | No Appearance |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT: | No Appearance |
Orders
IT IS ORDERED THAT
The Applicant’s application for leave to amend the Initiating Application filed 7 January 2014 is dismissed.
The Initiating Application filed 7 January 2014 is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
In the event that a party seeks an order that another party pay the costs of and incidental…
Continue reading Bloomfield and Grainger and Anor
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bloomfield and Grainger and Anor [2018] FamCA 36
- Case
- [2018] FamCA 36
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it possessed jurisdiction to hear the initiating application. Ancillary to this, the Court also considered an application by the applicant for leave to amend the initiating application.
Hogan J dismissed the applicant's application for leave to amend the initiating application. The Court then dismissed the initiating application itself for want of jurisdiction. The reasons for this lack of jurisdiction are not detailed in the provided text.
The Court made detailed orders regarding the process for any application for costs, requiring the filing and service of affidavits and written submissions within specified timeframes. Additionally, the Court provided a mechanism for parties to be heard on whether the reasons for judgment should be provided to the Office of State Revenue (Qld).
Orders
Orders of the court
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1.
The Applicant’s application for leave to amend the Initiating Application filed 7 January 2014 is dismissed.
2.
The Initiating Application filed 7 January 2014 is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
3.
In the event that a party seeks an order that another party pay the costs of and incidental to the Initiating Application filed 7 January 2014:
(a) any further affidavit material to be relied upon shall be filed and served within fourteen (14) days of today; and
(b) the party seeking an order for costs shall file and serve brief written submissions in support of such application for costs within fourteen (14) days of today; and
(c) the party from whom costs are sought shall file and serve any brief written submissions in answer to the submissions filed and served by the party seeking costs within a further fourteen (14) days thereafter; and
(d) the party seeking costs shall file and serve any brief further written submissions, strictly in reply to the submissions served by the party from whom costs are sought, within seven (7) days of its service,
and any such application for costs shall be determined in Chambers.
4.
In the event that any party wishes to be heard in relation to whether an order should be made granting the Applicant leave to provide a copy of the Reasons for Judgment delivered 31 January 2018 to the Office of State Revenue (Qld) or directing a Registrar of the Court to provide a copy of the Reasons for Judgment delivered 31 January 2018 to the Office of State Revenue (Qld), that party shall file and serve written submissions outlining their position within fourteen (14) days of today and the issue shall thereafter be considered in Chambers.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
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.