Bowden and Alebhim

[2009] FamCA 423

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BOWDEN & ALEBHIM [2009] FamCA 423

FAMILY LAW – CONSENT ORDERS

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Bowden

RESPONDENT: Mr Alebhim

FILE NUMBER: MLC 8231 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 11 May 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 11 May 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms E.A. Benjamin

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Robinson Gill

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr P.M. O'Shannessy

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Hall & Wilcox

Orders

1. That BY CONSENT there be orders in accordance with the minutes of proposed orders marked Exhibit “A” sealed and attached hereto AND IT IS DIRECTED that such minutes remain upon the Court file.

2. That the solicitor for the wife engross the minutes and deliver them by electronic transmission to my Associate within 7 days.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Bowden & Alebhim is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 8231 of 2007

MS BOWDEN

Applicant

And

MR ALEBHIM

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a property proceeding between Ms Bowden and Mr Alebhim.  It is a long marriage with two children who are both adults but have some personal difficulties, which will no doubt impinge upon the wife's time and energy. 

2. The difficulty in the property side of things is that it is hard to be exact as to what each party is getting, having regard to significant debts that the husband is taking on and the vagueness of the known assets.  This settlement is one in which the parties have different views as to what it means, but, from the wife's perspective, it is about 70 per cent of the known assets. 

3. The husband faces the prospect of having to carry significant debts of $1.2 million or thereabouts, and retains his super.  It is a practical compromise and one that has got a distinct ring of commercial reality about it, and on that basis it makes a lot of sense.  The orders also provide for ongoing- spousal maintenance in a final order, with a sunset clause that expires in 2012. 

4. The wife, having completed the divorce process in March 2008, understands, from what I have been told, that this is a final spousal maintenance order and she would face significant problems under section 44(3) to make a further application.  Having said all that, the parties are content for me to make the orders, and in the circumstances I declare them to be just and equitable. 

5. In the matter of Bowden and Alebhim, I make orders by consent in the terms of the minutes, which I will mark as exhibit "A", and I direct that that remain on the court file.  I will ask the solicitor for the wife to engross within seven days.

I certify that the preceding Five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin

Associate: 

Date:  21 May 2009