Brannon & Brannon - [2022] FedCFamC2F 1116

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Brannon & Brannon [2022] FedCFamC2F 1116

File number(s): WOC 255 of 2020

Judgment of: JUDGE BOYLE

Date of judgment: 23 August 2022

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Financial agreement – Wife not given requisite advice – agreement found not to be binding pursuant to s. 90G.

FAMILY LAW – Interim property – litigation funding – partial property order made.

FAMILY LAW – Spouse maintenance – periodic spouse maintenance ordered.

Legislation: Family Law Act1975 (Cth) ss. 75, 79, 90G, 90K

Cases cited:
Daily & Daily [2020] FamCA 486

Expense Reduction Analysts Group PTY Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 303

Hoult & Hoult [2013] FamCAFC 109

Iphostrou & Iphostrou and Ors [2011] FamCA 20

Kaimal & Kaimal [2020] FamCA 971

Klearchos & Klearchos [2015] FamCAFC 217

Logan & Logan [2013] FamCAFC 151

Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR

Shelbourne & Shelbourne [2019] FamCAFC 196

Strahan & Strahan (Interim Property Orders) (2011) FLC 93-466

Zschokke & Zschokke (1996) FLC 92-693

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 84

Date of hearing: 26, 27 August; 6 October 2021

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Schonell SC

Solicitor for the Applicant: Rossi Simicic Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Gould

Solicitor for the Respondent: Rita Thakur & Associates
ORDERS

WOC 255 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS BRANNON

Applicant

AND:
MR BRANNON

Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE BOYLE

DATE OF ORDER:

23 August 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Binding Financial Agreement dated 30 June 2005 is declared not binding pursuant to section 90G(1)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975.
2.The husband shall pay to the wife by way of litigation funding the sum of $222,627 within 28 days.
3.The husband shall pay to the wife by way of periodic spousal maintenance the sum of $950 each Friday to a bank account nominated by the wife in writing.
4.Within 14 days, the parties shall forward to chambers a minute of orders in relation to the future conduct of the matter including attendance at private mediation or conciliation conference.

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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Brannon & Brannon has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

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 Brannon & Brannon

Details

AGLC: Brannon & Brannon [2022] FedCFamC2F 1116
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 1116
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Brannon & Brannon was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary issues were whether a financial agreement was binding, the provision of litigation funding and spousal maintenance. The wife argued that the financial agreement was not binding as she had not received requisite independent legal advice. The husband opposed the application and relied on the financial agreement. The wife sought spousal maintenance and an interim financial adjustment. The court found that the wife did not receive requisite legal advice and the financial agreement was not binding. The court also found that it was appropriate to make an order for litigation funding in favour of the wife and periodic spousal maintenance in favour of the wife.

Orders