Cleary & McKenzie (No 3)

Case [2023] FedCFamC1F 1102


FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Cleary & McKenzie (No 3) [2023] FedCFamC1F 1102

File number: SYC 4879 of 2022
Judgment of: SCHONELL J
Date of judgment: 18 December 2023
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Joinder – Where the wife sought to join the husband’s son to the proceedings – Where part of the final relief sought by the wife includes an order for the sale of a property that is registered in the name of the husband’s son – Where the evidence appears to be that funds of the husband and wife were applied to the property – Where it is necessary that the husband’s son be joined to the proceedings to resolve the issues in dispute – Order made joining the husband’s son to the proceedings    
Cases cited:

Cleary & McKenzie (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1F 1009

Wayne v Dillon (2008) 40 Fam LR 543; [2008] FamCAFC 204

Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 16
Date of hearing: 14 December 2023
Place: Sydney
The Applicant: Litigant in person
The First Respondent: Litigant in person
The Second Respondent: Did not participate
The Putative Third Respondent: Litigant in person
The Fourth Respondent: Litigant in person

ORDERS

SYC 4879 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS CLEARY

Applicant

AND:

MR MCKENZIE

First Respondent

MR STEWART

Second Respondent

MR V MCKENZIE (and another named in the Schedule)

Putative Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

SCHONELL J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 DECEMBER 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Mr V McKenzie be joined to the proceedings as the third respondent.

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, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Cleary & McKenzie has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SCHONELL J:

  1. By way of Further Further Amended Initiating Application filed 5 December 2023, the applicant de facto wife (“the wife”) sought to join the first respondent de facto husband’s (“the husband’s”) sister (“the fourth respondent”) and son (“the putative third respondent”) to the current proceedings.  

  2. Directions were made for all parties to file their affidavits including those of the putative joinder parties.

  3. On the hearing, the fourth respondent, Ms Gallagher, consented to joinder and orders were made accordingly. The question for determination therefore remained whether the putative third respondent, Mr…

Continue reading Cleary & McKenzie (No 3)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cleary & McKenzie (No 3) [2023] FedCFamC1F 1102
Case
[2023] FedCFamC1F 1102
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Cleary & McKenzie (No 3), the applicant, Ms. Cleary, sought to join Mr. V. McKenzie, the son of the first respondent, Mr. McKenzie, to family law proceedings. The dispute between Ms. Cleary and Mr. McKenzie involves the sale of a property registered in the name of Mr. V. McKenzie, which is part of the final relief sought by Ms. Cleary. The case was heard by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue the court needed to decide was whether it was necessary to join Mr. V. McKenzie to the proceedings to fully and finally determine all matters in dispute. The court had to consider whether joinder was essential to resolve the issues regarding the property and the application of funds from both Ms. Cleary and Mr. McKenzie to the property.

The court found that joinder was necessary to "completely and finally determine all matters in dispute" as per the principles outlined in Wayne v Dillon. The court noted that if Ms. Cleary did not succeed in her case against Mr. V. McKenzie, costs could become a significant issue. Consequently, the court concluded that an order for joinder should be made, ensuring that all relevant parties are present to resolve the disputes effectively.

The court ordered that Mr. V. McKenzie be joined to the proceedings as the third respondent. This decision ensures that the court can address all issues related to the property and the application of funds from both Ms. Cleary and Mr. McKenzie, thereby facilitating a comprehensive resolution of the matter.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 4879 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS CLEARY

Applicant

AND:

MR MCKENZIE

First Respondent

MR STEWART

Second Respondent

MR V MCKENZIE (and another named in the Schedule)

Putative Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

SCHONELL J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 DECEMBER 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Mr V McKenzie be joined to the proceedings as the third respondent.

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, 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

I am satisfied, notwithstanding the conflicting evidence on the issue, that joinder is necessary to “completely and finally determine all matters in dispute” (see Wayne v Dillon (2008) 40 Fam LR 543 at [19]). In the event that the wife does not make good her case against the putative third respondent, then it is not beyond the realm of imagination to anticipate that costs will become a significant issue.CONCLUSION For the above reasons, I am satisfied that an order for joinder should be made as sought by the wife.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.