Brady and Wilmore

[2018] FCCA 1993

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BRADY & WILMORE [2018] FCCA 1993

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Interim – property – exclusive occupation.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975

Cases cited:

Keogh & Meys [2008] FMCAfam 719

Price (unreported) 12 July 1982

Applicant: MR BRADY

Respondent: MS WILMORE

File Number: SYC 3483 of 2018

Judgment of: Judge Henderson

Hearing date: 3 July 2018

Date of Last Submission: 3 July 2018

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 3 July 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Wong

Solicitors for the Applicant: The Norton Law Group

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Johnston

Solicitors for the Respondent: Craddock Murray Neumann

ORDERS

1. The matter is stood over to 14 August 2018 at 9:30am.

2. The husband is to vacate the property situate and known as Property A New South Wales (“Property A property”) within 28 days and thereafter the wife is to have exclusive occupation of the Property A property. 

3. The wife will provide to the husband’s real estate agent, the monies for a bond and six weeks rent, at a cap of $500 per week.

4. At the expiration of the first six weeks of rent, the wife to pay the husband’s rent, for twenty-two weeks.

5. Upon the husband vacating the Property A property, the wife is to forthwith provide to the husband $10,000 paid into his account, or as he may otherwise direct.

6. The nature of the payments in these Orders will be determined by the trial judge at any Final Hearing of this matter.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYC 3483 of 2018

MR BRADY

Applicant

And

MS WILMORE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by the former wife for exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home. The application was resisted by the husband. If I determine the wife’s case has merit, I can grant her exclusive occupation on terms, including provision to the husband of funds for alternative accommodation, amongst other things. Mr Wong of counsel acted for the wife and Mr Johnston of counsel for the husband.

2. I read the following for the parties.

   a)For the wife:

   i)Her Financial Statement filed 7 June 2018;

   ii)Affidavits of 7 June 2018, 2 July 2018;

   iii)Affidavit of her son Mr J dated 7 June 2018;

   iv)Affidavit of her solicitors Ms Gillian Wright dated 2 July 2018;

   v)Affidavit of her psychologist Mr M dated 7 June 2018; and

   vi)I read the case outline prepared by her lawyer.

   b)For the husband I read:

   i)Affidavit and Financial Statement filed 4 June 2018; and

   ii)Affidavit filed 29 June 2018.

3. The short relevant chronology is as follows.

4. The husband was born in 1955. He will be 63 in.

5. The wife was born in 1969 in (country omitted). Her son Mr J was born in 1998. The wife and her son immigrated to Australia in 2011.

6. The wife purchased the property at Property A,…