Cirillo & Cirillo (No 3) - [2022] FedCFamC1F 207

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Cirillo & Cirillo (No 3) [2022] FedCFamC1F 207

File number(s): SYC 4192 of 2020

Judgment of: ALDRIDGE J

Date of judgment: 1 April 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – INTERIM – Partial property settlement – Litigation funding – Disclosure – Where the parties agreed that there should be partial property settlement to each of them – Where the source of funds is in a controlled monies account – Where the primary asset needs repairs –Orders made for partial property settlement – No orders as to disclosure made.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)

Cases cited:
Cirillo & Cirillo [2021] FedCFamC1F 118

Salvage & Fosse (2020) FLC 93-966

Strahan & Strahan (Interim property orders) (2011) FLC 93-466

Zschokke and Zschokke (1996) FLC 92‑693

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 38

Date of hearing: 18 February 2022
10 March 2022

Place: Sydney (via video link)

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Vohra SC on 18 February 2022
Mr North SC on 10 March 2022

Solicitor for the Applicant: Lander & Rogers

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr Williams SC with Mr Todd on 18 February 2022
Mr Richardson SC with Mr Todd on 10 March 2022

Solicitor for the Respondents: Boyce Family Law & Mediation
ORDERS

SYC 4192 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MS CIRILLO

Applicant

AND:
MR CIRILLO

First Respondent

B PTY LTD

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

ALDRIDGE J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 APRIL 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant and first respondent will each be paid $2.75 million and $2.5 million respectively from the controlled monies account operated by TT Lawyers by way of interim partial property settlement.
2.Pending further order, the first respondent shall do all acts and things necessary to cause repayments to be made for the mortgage over the property situated at RR Street, Suburb P, as and when they fall due.

NOTATION:
A.It is agreed that Ms WW of AB Company will value the relevant companies and trusts, Mr XX of ZZ Company will value F Property and QQ Property and Mr AD of AC Company will value the MM Property and PP Property.
B.It would be expected that the parties would cooperate and send joint letters of instructions within 48 hours of these orders.

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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons,…

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 Cirillo & Cirillo (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Cirillo & Cirillo (No 3) [2022] FedCFamC1F 207
Case: [2022] FedCFamC1F 207
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter involves a dispute between the husband and wife, in which they seek a partial property settlement from the controlled monies account. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the husband and wife were entitled to an interim partial property settlement from the controlled monies account. The court also had to consider the valuation of specific properties and companies, and whether the agreed valuers could proceed with their assessments.

The court found that the parties had reached an agreement on the valuation of specific properties and companies, and had agreed to engage particular valuers for this purpose. The court emphasised the importance of the parties cooperating in this regard and sending joint letters of instruction to the valuers within 48 hours of the orders. The court further determined that the husband and wife were entitled to an interim partial property settlement from the controlled monies account, with the husband to receive $2.5 million and the wife to receive $2.75 million. Additionally, the court ordered the husband to make repayments for the mortgage over the Suburb P property as they fall due.

In summary, the court granted the husband and wife an interim partial property settlement from the controlled monies account, in the amounts of $2.5 million and $2.75 million respectively. The court also approved the appointment of specific valuers to assess the properties and companies in question, and ordered the husband to make repayments for the mortgage over the Suburb P property as they fall due. The parties were directed to cooperate in sending joint letters of instruction to the valuers within 48 hours of the orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Finally, it is agreed that Ms WW of AB Company will value the relevant companies and trusts, Mr XX of ZZ Company will value F Property and QQ Property and Mr AD of AC Company will value the MM Property and PP Property. It would be expected that the parties would cooperate and send joint letters of instructions within 48 hours of these orders.CONCLUSION The Amended Application in a Proceeding filed on 9 March 2022 and Amended Response to Application in a Proceeding filed on 8 March 2022 will otherwise be dismissed. The orders will be pursuant to s 79 of the Act. The husband and wife will each be paid $2.5 million and $2.75 million respectively from the controlled monies account by way of interim partial property settlement. Pending further order, the husband shall do all acts and things to cause repayments to be made for the mortgage over the Suburb P property as and when they fall due. I note that the parties have agreed to the following valuers: ·Ms WW of AB Company to value the relevant companies and trusts;·Mr XX of ZZ Company to value F Property and QQ Property; and ·Mr AD of AC Company to value the MM Property and PP Property. The parties are to cooperate and send joint letters of instructions within 48 hours of these orders.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	SYC 4192 of 2020
Judgment of:	ALDRIDGE J
Date of judgment:	1 April 2022
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – INTERIM – Partial property settlement – Litigation funding – Disclosure – Where the parties agreed that there should be partial property settlement to each of them – Where the source of funds is in a controlled monies account – Where the primary asset needs repairs –Orders made for partial property settlement – No orders as to disclosure made.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)
Cases cited:	Cirillo & Cirillo [2021] FedCFamC1F 118 Salvage & Fosse (2020) FLC 93-966 Strahan & Strahan (Interim property orders) (2011) FLC 93-466 Zschokke and Zschokke (1996) FLC 92‑693
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	38
Date of hearing:	18 February 2022 10 March 2022
Place:	Sydney (via video link)
Counsel for the Applicant:	Ms Vohra SC on 18 February 2022 Mr North SC on 10 March 2022
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Lander & Rogers
Counsel for the Respondents:	Mr Williams SC with Mr Todd on 18 February 2022 Mr Richardson SC with Mr Todd on 10 March 2022
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Boyce Family Law & Mediation

SYC 4192 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MS CIRILLO Applicant
AND:	MR CIRILLO First Respondent B PTY LTD Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	ALDRIDGE J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 APRIL 2022