Candlin & Candlin
Case
•
[2017] FCCA 2211
•13 September 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
CANDLIN & CANDLIN [2017] FCCA 2211
[2017] FCCA 2211
13 September 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Family Court of Australia, Judge A Kelly considered an interim application concerning spousal maintenance, property orders, and litigation funding between the husband and wife. The parties had previously consented to an interim payment, the ultimate characterisation of which was reserved for trial. The current application sought interim relief pending a final hearing, following the parties' consent to vacate the trial date.
The court was required to determine whether it possessed the power to make orders in respect of litigation funding under the *Family Law Act 1975*, specifically in relation to spousal maintenance, property, or costs. It was also necessary to identify the specific head of power upon which any such determination would be based, and to consider the discretionary factors relevant to granting interim relief. The court also had to address issues arising from an incomplete joint valuation of property, where the husband had instructed the valuer not to assess water rights, leading to an inference that such evidence would not have assisted his opposition to the wife's application.
The court reasoned that it had the power to grant interim relief by way of property orders, and applied discretionary considerations in doing so. The husband was ordered to pay the wife $1,000 per week by way of financial support until further order, commencing on 5 July 2017. Additionally, the husband was ordered to pay $100,000 towards the wife's legal costs and disbursements by 18 October 2017, with the ultimate characterisation of this payment reserved for the trial judge. The court also directed the husband to facilitate the valuation of a specific property, including water rights, and vacated a previous order concerning the content of submission outlines, instead directing the parties to confer on a template. The parties were then ordered to file and exchange their outlines of submissions, including a minute of proposed final orders, by 10 November 2017. The costs of the application were reserved.
The court was required to determine whether it possessed the power to make orders in respect of litigation funding under the *Family Law Act 1975*, specifically in relation to spousal maintenance, property, or costs. It was also necessary to identify the specific head of power upon which any such determination would be based, and to consider the discretionary factors relevant to granting interim relief. The court also had to address issues arising from an incomplete joint valuation of property, where the husband had instructed the valuer not to assess water rights, leading to an inference that such evidence would not have assisted his opposition to the wife's application.
The court reasoned that it had the power to grant interim relief by way of property orders, and applied discretionary considerations in doing so. The husband was ordered to pay the wife $1,000 per week by way of financial support until further order, commencing on 5 July 2017. Additionally, the husband was ordered to pay $100,000 towards the wife's legal costs and disbursements by 18 October 2017, with the ultimate characterisation of this payment reserved for the trial judge. The court also directed the husband to facilitate the valuation of a specific property, including water rights, and vacated a previous order concerning the content of submission outlines, instead directing the parties to confer on a template. The parties were then ordered to file and exchange their outlines of submissions, including a minute of proposed final orders, by 10 November 2017. The costs of the application were reserved.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Expert Evidence
-
Consent
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
CANDLIN & CANDLIN [2017] FCCA 2211
Most Recent Citation
Dobkowski & Dobkowski [2022] FedCFamC2F 369
Cases Citing This Decision
3
Dennison & Dennison
[2021] FCCA 2039
GUYEN & GUYEN
[2019] FCCA 2982
Dobkowski & Dobkowski
[2022] FedCFamC2F 369
Cases Cited
20
Statutory Material Cited
4
Kyriakos & Kyriakos
[2013] FamCAFC 22
Paris King Investments Pty Ltd v Rayhill
[2006] NSWSC 578
Paris King Investments Pty Ltd v Rayhill
[2006] NSWSC 578