BULLEEN & BULLEEN

Case [2011] FamCA 253


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BULLEEN & BULLEEN [2011] FamCA 253
FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Variation of property orders - Power to make machinery orders and to vary them - Slip rule usage where orders not consistent with Court’s intention.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth)
Elyard Corporation Pty Ltd v DDB Needham Sydney Pty Ltd [1995] 61 FCR 385
FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Southern Cross Exploration NL (1988) 165 CLR 268
Guinness & Guinness (No. 2) [2008] FamCAFC 100
Ravasini & Ravasini (1983) FLC 91-312
Slapp & Slapp (1989) FLC 92-022; 13 Fam LR 158
Vance & Vance [2011] FamCAFC 17
APPLICANT: Ms Bulleen
RESPONDENT: Mr Bulleen
FILE NUMBER: MLC 12431 of 2007
DATE DELIVERED: 12 April 2011
PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne
PLACE HEARD: Melbourne
JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J
HEARING DATE: 23 February 2011

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: MR Geddes QC
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Gillian Coote Family Law
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Walker
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Gadens Lawyers

Orders

  1. That within 14 days, the husband provide to the solicitors for the wife, the documents referred to in the letter dated 30 November 2010 from Mr F to the wife’s solicitors.

  2. That paragraphs 2 and 3 of the orders made on 28 September 2010 are varied such that the process for the division and distribution of the artwork referred to in the said orders is to resume within 48 hours of these orders as if the process had not been suspended by the husband.

  3. That save as to any issue of costs, the application in a case of the wife filed 16 February 2011 and the response of the husband thereto filed 23 February 2011 are otherwise dismissed.

AND THE COURT NOTES that paragraph 9 of the orders made on 28 September 2010 was incorrect and has been amended pursuant to Rule 17.02(5) of the Family Law Rules 2004.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Bulleen & Bulleen is approved 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

Ms Bulleen

Applicant

And

Mr Bulleen

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The parties in this dispute require determinations which would enable the implementation of property orders made in March 2010. At that time, I ordered that their property be divided on a percentage basis making orders for each party to retain specific property.

  2. The two issues litigated in this interim hearing were:

    (a)whether the husband should provide source documents and information about how his accountant determined the amount deposited into the wife’s bank account in partial satisfaction of a payment by their corporate entity B Holdings; and

    (b)could and should a default order for the distribution and/or sale of artwork be activated as a result of or because of, the actions of the husband who had unilaterally “suspended” the distribution process and was there power to vary that default order?

  3. In…

Continue reading BULLEEN & BULLEEN

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
BULLEEN & BULLEEN [2011] FamCA 253
Case
[2011] FamCA 253
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Bulleen & Bulleen*, heard before Cronin J, the dispute concerned the division and distribution of marital assets, specifically a collection of artwork. The wife sought orders relating to the disclosure of documents and the resumption of a previously suspended process for dividing the artwork, while the husband had filed a response to her application.

The court was required to determine whether to order the husband to provide specific documents as requested by the wife, and whether to vary existing orders to allow the process for the division and distribution of the artwork to recommence. The court also considered the wife's application and the husband's response in their entirety.

Cronin J ordered the husband to provide the specified documents within 14 days. Furthermore, the court varied previous orders to ensure the process for dividing and distributing the artwork resumed within 48 hours, as if it had not been suspended. The court also noted an error in a previous order and amended it accordingly. Save for any issues of costs, the wife's application and the husband's response were otherwise dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That within 14 days, the husband provide to the solicitors for the wife, the documents referred to in the letter dated 30 November 2010 from Mr F to the wife’s solicitors.

2.

That paragraphs 2 and 3 of the orders made on 28 September 2010 are varied such that the process for the division and distribution of the artwork referred to in the said orders is to resume within 48 hours of these orders as if the process had not been suspended by the husband.

3.

That save as to any issue of costs, the application in a case of the wife filed 16 February 2011 and the response of the husband thereto filed 23 February 2011 are otherwise dismissed.

AND THE COURT NOTES that paragraph 9 of the orders made on 28 September 2010 was incorrect and has been amended pursuant to Rule 17.02(5) of the Family Law Rules 2004.

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.