Celia & Celia - [2024] FedCFamC2F 1581

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Celia & Celia [2024] FedCFamC2F 1581

File number: MLC 5415 of 2023

Judgment of: JUDGE CHAMPION

Date of judgment: 25 October 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Property – Applicant seeking an injunction to freeze the bank accounts held in the Respondent's name – Application dismissed

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss. 79, 114, 117

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr. 5.23, 8.18

Cases cited:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57

Chen & Chen and Anor [2016] FamCA 758

Hancock& Hancock [2023] FedCFamC1F 429

Liatos & Liatos [2007] FamCA 945

M v DB [2006] FamCA 1380

Palmer v Parbery [2019] QCA 27

Tsiang v Wu [2019] FamCAFC 128

Heath, Robert and Johannes Schmidt, “The Unjustifiable Requirement For An Asset Preservation Order” (2024) 33 Australian Family Lawyer 49

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 46

Date of hearing: 25 October 2024

Place: Melbourne

Applicant: The Applicant in person, appearing electronically

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Rika Teicher

Solicitor for the Respondent: Jessy Bhullar Pty Ltd
ORDERS

MLC 5415 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR CELIA

Applicant

AND:
MS CELIA

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE CHAMPION

DATE OF ORDER:

25 OCTOBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application is dismissed.
2.The Applicant Husband pay the Respondent Wife’s costs of the application in the amount of $6,280.00 fixed in accordance with the scale set out in Schedule 1 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
3.The affidavit of Ms B filed 18 October 2024 be struck out pursuant to rule 8.18(1) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.The previous Court order made by Judicial Registrar Taylor on 16 September 2024 that there be a conciliation conference on 13 November 2024 and the ancillary orders made on that day remain in full force and effect.

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).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of 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 has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Revised from transcript
JUDGE CHAMPION:
WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?

Mr Celia is the Applicant Husband…

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 Celia & Celia

Details

AGLC: Celia & Celia [2024] FedCFamC2F 1581
Case: [2024] FedCFamC2F 1581
Decision Date: 25 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Celia & Celia, the Applicant, Mr Celia, sought an injunction to freeze the bank accounts held in the name of the Respondent, Ms Celia. This application was dismissed by Judge Champion in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether an injunction should be granted to freeze the Respondent's bank accounts, a measure requested by the Applicant to prevent dissipation of assets during the ongoing family law proceedings. The court was required to assess the balance of convenience and whether the Applicant had made out a case sufficient to justify the issuance of an injunction.

The court found that the Applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient balance of convenience to warrant the issuance of an injunction. It was noted that the Applicant had not provided compelling evidence to support the urgent need to freeze the accounts, and there was no clear indication that the Respondent intended to dissipate assets. The court also considered the potential prejudice that the freezing of the accounts could cause to the Respondent, who relied on those funds for her day-to-day living expenses. Given these factors, the court concluded that the Applicant had not met the threshold for the issuance of an injunction.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the application and ordered the Applicant to pay the Respondent's costs of the application, in the amount of $6,280.00. Additionally, the affidavit of Ms B filed on 18 October 2024 was struck out. The court noted that the previous order for a conciliation conference and related ancillary orders would remain in effect. The form of the order is subject to entry in the Court's records and may be reviewed or varied in accordance with the relevant rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

MLC 5415 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MR CELIA

Applicant

AND:

MS CELIA

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE CHAMPION

DATE OF ORDER:

25 OCTOBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The Applicant Husband pay the Respondent Wife’s costs of the application in the amount of $6,280.00 fixed in accordance with the scale set out in Schedule 1 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

3. The affidavit of Ms B filed 18 October 2024 be struck out pursuant to rule 8.18(1) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:

A. The previous Court order made by Judicial Registrar Taylor on 16 September 2024 that there be a conciliation conference on 13 November 2024 and the ancillary orders made on that day remain in full force and effect.

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).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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.

File number:	MLC 5415 of 2023
Judgment of:	JUDGE CHAMPION
Date of judgment:	25 October 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – Property – Applicant seeking an injunction to freeze the bank accounts held in the Respondent's name – Application dismissed
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss. 79, 114, 117 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr. 5.23, 8.18
Cases cited:	Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57 Chen & Chen and Anor [2016] FamCA 758 Hancock& Hancock [2023] FedCFamC1F 429 Liatos & Liatos [2007] FamCA 945 M v DB [2006] FamCA 1380 Palmer v Parbery [2019] QCA 27 Tsiang v Wu [2019] FamCAFC 128 Heath, Robert and Johannes Schmidt, “The Unjustifiable Requirement For An Asset Preservation Order” (2024) 33 Australian Family Lawyer 49
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	46
Date of hearing:	25 October 2024
Place:	Melbourne
Applicant:	The Applicant in person, appearing electronically
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Rika Teicher
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Jessy Bhullar Pty Ltd

MLC 5415 of 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MR CELIA Applicant
AND:	MS CELIA Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE CHAMPION
DATE OF ORDER:	25 OCTOBER 2024