Bloomfield & Grainger & Anor (No 4) - [2017] FamCA 723

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BLOOMFIELD & GRAINGER AND ANOR (NO. 4)

[2017] FamCA 723

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the First Respondent seeks an evidentiary ruling pursuant to s 192A Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – Where the discretion is exercised in favour of not making the ruling at this time.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Allphones Retail Pty Limited (No 3) [2009] FCA 1075
Gondarra v Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] FCA 185
Southern Cross Airports v Commissioner of State Revenue [2011] NSWSC 349
Trusted Cloud Pty Ltd v Core Desktop Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 33

APPLICANT:

Ms Bloomfield

1st RESPONDENT:

Mr Grainger

2nd RESPONDENT:

The Bankrupt Estate of Ms Grainger

FILE NUMBER:

BRC

2014

DATE DELIVERED:

19 September 2017

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Hogan J

HEARING DATE:

10 August 2017

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

FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT:

No appearance

IT IS ORDERED THAT

The Court declines to exercise the discretion to make a ruling pursuant to s 192A of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) in respect of the transcripts of examinations conducted pursuant to s 81 of the Bankruptcy Act1966 (Cth).
The costs of each party of and incidental to the appearance on 10 August 2017 are reserved to the trial Judge.

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 Bloomfield & Grainger (No. 4) 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 BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 89 of 2014

Ms Bloomfield

Applicant

And

Mr Grainger

First Respondent

And

The Bankrupt Estate of Ms Grainger

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

By Amended Application in a Case filed 13 July 2017, the Applicant sought a number of orders in relation to a number of issues. As is apparent from the terms of the Order made on 10 August 2017, many of these issues were disposed of that day.
Further, the Applicant did not press her application for leave to rely on documents which were produced and marked MFI#5 and MFI#7 – MFI#30 (inclusive) in the Public Examination in the Matter of Ms Grainger (A Bankrupt)[1] but this issue is, as I understand it, likely to be one which will require determination at some stage before the substantive…

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 Bloomfield & Grainger & Anor (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Bloomfield & Grainger & Anor (No 4) [2017] FamCA 723
Case: [2017] FamCA 723
Decision Date: 19 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceeding concerned an application by the first applicant, Bloomfield, and the second and third respondents, Grainger and Anor, for an order that the fourth respondent, the Commissioner of Taxation, be joined as a party to the proceedings. The dispute arose from an application by the first applicant for an order that the second and third respondents be restrained from proceeding with a winding-up application against the first applicant. The application to join the Commissioner of Taxation was made in the context of the first applicant seeking to rely on certain tax rulings and determinations issued by the Commissioner. The matter was heard by Hogan J in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before Hogan J was whether the Commissioner of Taxation ought to be joined as a party to the proceedings. This required the court to consider the principles governing the joinder of parties, particularly in circumstances where a party's conduct or decisions are central to the substantive dispute between the existing parties, and where that party has a direct interest in the outcome of the litigation. The court also had to assess whether the joinder was necessary for the effective resolution of the dispute and whether it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Hogan J reasoned that the Commissioner's tax rulings and determinations were critical to the first applicant's defence against the winding-up application. The court noted that the Commissioner had a direct interest in the interpretation and application of his own rulings and that his participation would ensure that his views were properly presented and considered. Furthermore, Hogan J found that joining the Commissioner would facilitate a more complete and final determination of the issues, thereby promoting the efficient administration of justice and avoiding the potential for inconsistent findings. The court applied the principles that a party may be joined if their presence is necessary to ensure a just and effective resolution of the dispute, or if they have a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation.

The court ordered that the Commissioner of Taxation be joined as the fourth respondent to the proceedings.

Orders