BULLEEN & BULLEEN - [2012] FamCA 101

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BULLEEN & BULLEEN

[2012] FamCA 101

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – value of property

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464
Bulleen and Bulleen [2010] FamCA 187; (2010 43 Fam LR 489)
Bulleen and Bulleen [2010] FamCA 859
Bulleen and Bulleen [2011] FamCA 253
Cunningham v Cunningham (2005) FLC 93-212
GBT and BJT [2005] FamCA 683
McFarlane (2004) FamCA 1309

APPLICANT:

Mr Bulleen

RESPONDENT:

Ms Bulleen

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

12431

2007

DATE DELIVERED:

8 March 2012

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Cronin J

HEARING DATE:

24 February 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Kirkham QC WITH Mr Strum

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Gadens Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Murphy SC with Mr Clarke

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Lewis Allen Janover

Orders

Arising out of all extant orders, artwork belonging to the person who has nominated it shall be collected by no later than 4.00pm on 31 March 2012 by arrangement and the party who currently holds such artwork shall make it available accordingly.
That by 4.00pm on 31 March 2012, the wife pay to the husband $69,995 by way of his entitlement pursuant to the orders of 12 March 2010.

IT IS CERTIFIED:

That pursuant to Order 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage senior counsel and two counsel to attend.
That should any party seek costs arising out of these orders, such application be made by written submission and filed and served by no later than 16 March 2012 with such submission being endorsed with the fact that it has been so served on the other party and any recipient of such submission have until 30 March 2012 to file and serve any response and such response be endorsed with the fact that it has been so served on the other party and upon receipt of any such application for costs, it or they be determined in chambers.
That the application of the husband filed 5 August 2011 and the response of the wife thereto filed 4 October 2011 are otherwise dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Bulleen & Bulleen has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 12431 of 2007

Mr Bulleen

Applicant

And

Ms Bulleen

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

By application filed 5 August 2011, the husband sought a number of orders which if made, would finalise all property proceedings between the parties. In simple terms, he sought that the wife pay him $69,995 being the sum said to finally adjust their property entitlements.
Although that sum may sound modest, its preciseness was determined by an accountant whose evidence about the quantum was unchallenged.
The pool of assets between the parties ran to many millions of dollars. Almost two years ago, the husband paid into the…

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 BULLEEN & BULLEEN

Details

AGLC: BULLEEN & BULLEEN [2012] FamCA 101
Case: [2012] FamCA 101
Decision Date: 8 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Bulleen & Bulleen*, heard before Cronin J, the dispute concerned the division of property and the collection of artwork between the parties. The orders indicate a final resolution of these matters.

The court was required to determine the final disposition of artwork held by one party and the payment of a sum of money by the wife to the husband, representing his entitlement under previous orders. Additionally, the court considered the reasonableness of engaging senior counsel and two counsel for the proceedings, and the procedure for any subsequent applications for costs.

Cronin J ordered that artwork nominated by a party be collected by 4.00 pm on 31 March 2012, with the party holding the artwork to make it available. The wife was also ordered to pay the husband $69,995 by 4.00 pm on 31 March 2012, representing his entitlement under orders made on 12 March 2010. The court certified that it was reasonable to engage senior counsel and two counsel. Any application for costs was to be made by written submission by 16 March 2012, with responses due by 30 March 2012, and costs to be determined in chambers. The husband's application filed on 5 August 2011 and the wife's response filed on 4 October 2011 were otherwise dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Arising out of all extant orders, artwork belonging to the person who has nominated it shall be collected by no later than 4.00pm on 31 March 2012 by arrangement and the party who currently holds such artwork shall make it available accordingly.

That by 4.00pm on 31 March 2012, the wife pay to the husband $69,995 by way of his entitlement pursuant to the orders of 12 March 2010.

IT IS CERTIFIED:

That pursuant to Order 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage senior counsel and two counsel to attend.

That should any party seek costs arising out of these orders, such application be made by written submission and filed and served by no later than 16 March 2012 with such submission being endorsed with the fact that it has been so served on the other party and any recipient of such submission have until 30 March 2012 to file and serve any response and such response be endorsed with the fact that it has been so served on the other party and upon receipt of any such application for costs, it or they be determined in chambers.

That the application of the husband filed 5 August 2011 and the response of the wife thereto filed 4 October 2011 are otherwise dismissed.

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.