Calhoun & Calhoun
Case
•
[2021] FamCA 601
•16 August 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Calhoun & Calhoun [2021] FamCA 601
[2021] FamCA 601
16 August 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Calhoun & Calhoun*, Austin J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the husband for enforcement of property settlement orders made on 25 November 2020. The dispute arose from a shortfall in payments due to the husband, which he contended was a result of the wife's failure to properly account for the credit balance of a corporate working account held by B Pty Ltd at the actual settlement date. The settlement was originally scheduled for 9 February 2021 but was delayed until 23 February 2021. The husband alleged that the wife calculated his entitlement based on the earlier proposed settlement date, resulting in a shortfall.
The court was required to determine the husband's entitlement to the alleged shortfall in payments from B Pty Ltd's corporate working account, as well as his claim for certain payments made from the account prior to the settlement date. Specifically, the court had to ascertain whether the husband was entitled to half of the credit balance of the corporate working account as at the actual settlement date of 23 February 2021, or as at the originally proposed settlement date of 9 February 2021. The court also considered whether to enforce the recovery of relatively insignificant disputed payments made from the account.
Austin J reasoned that while the husband's claims relating to Orders 6 and 17-20 of the November 2020 orders were rejected due to insufficient evidence and the de minimis nature of the dispute, he had proven an entitlement to an additional $24,063.92 under Order 8. This sum represented his share of the corporate working account balance as at the actual settlement date. The court declared that this sum was due and owing to the husband from B Pty Ltd. The court further ordered that B Pty Ltd pay the husband's party/party costs in a fixed sum of $1,500, and unless the wife, as director of B Pty Ltd, confirmed payment of the declared sum within seven days, a third-party debt notice would be issued to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to garnish the amount from B Pty Ltd's account.
The court was required to determine the husband's entitlement to the alleged shortfall in payments from B Pty Ltd's corporate working account, as well as his claim for certain payments made from the account prior to the settlement date. Specifically, the court had to ascertain whether the husband was entitled to half of the credit balance of the corporate working account as at the actual settlement date of 23 February 2021, or as at the originally proposed settlement date of 9 February 2021. The court also considered whether to enforce the recovery of relatively insignificant disputed payments made from the account.
Austin J reasoned that while the husband's claims relating to Orders 6 and 17-20 of the November 2020 orders were rejected due to insufficient evidence and the de minimis nature of the dispute, he had proven an entitlement to an additional $24,063.92 under Order 8. This sum represented his share of the corporate working account balance as at the actual settlement date. The court declared that this sum was due and owing to the husband from B Pty Ltd. The court further ordered that B Pty Ltd pay the husband's party/party costs in a fixed sum of $1,500, and unless the wife, as director of B Pty Ltd, confirmed payment of the declared sum within seven days, a third-party debt notice would be issued to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to garnish the amount from B Pty Ltd's account.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Breach
-
Remedies
-
Costs
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Calhoun & Calhoun [2021] FamCA 601
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
1