Correy and Correy and Ors

[2014] FCCA 1939

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CORREY & CORREY & ORS [2014] FCCA 1939

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Transfer to Family Court of Australia – eligibility for costs certificates.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, s.39
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.8.02

Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981, s.10

Family Law Act 1975, s.79

Property Law Act 1958, s.172

Applicant: MS N CORREY

First Respondent: MR A CORREY

Second Respondent: MR N CORREY

Third Respondent: [T] PTY LTD

Fourth Respondent: MS I CORREY

File Number: MLC 2604 of 2012

Judgment of: Judge F. Turner

Hearing date: 18 August 2014

Date of Last Submission: 18 August 2014

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 18 August 2014

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Grant & Mr Bailey

Solicitors for the Applicant: Merhi & Associates

Solicitors for the First  Respondent: Elamine Lawyers

Solicitors for the Second Respondent: Stenta Legal

Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr Davis

Solicitors for the Fourth Respondent: Constanzo Lawyers

Counsel for the Fourth Respondents: Mr Alexander

ORDERS

1. The matter be transferred to the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne to be listed on a date and time to be advised to the parties.

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:

Counsel for the second respondent will submit written submissions to chambers in relation to an application for costs; such application will be dealt with in chambers.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Correy & Correy & Ors is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 2604 of 2012

MS N CORREY

Applicant

And

MR A CORREY

First Respondent

MR N CORREY

Second Respondent

[T] PTY LTD

Third Respondent

MS I CORREY

Fourth Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered Extempore & Revised)

1. This decision involves the question of whether the matter should be transferred to the Family Court of Australia. That question was raised by this Court upon hearing an opening submission for the applicant wife.

2. The parties in the case are:

   ·The applicant wife (the “wife”);

   ·The first respondent husband (the “husband”);

   ·The second respondent, who is the husband’s brother and sole director of the third respondent;

   ·The third respondent is [T] Pty Ltd, which was established by the first and second respondents. It is now deregistered and was not represented; and

   ·The fourth respondent, is the wife of the second respondent.

3. Mr Bailey Counsel for the wife seeks to bring a claim within the accrued jurisdiction of the Court, that the husband allegedly improperly drew down $354,000.00 from the mortgage on the matrimonial home and gave it to the second respondent, who then placed it into the accounts of the third respondent, and the money was later disbursed to various people other than the wife.

4. Messrs Grant and Bailey for the wife submits that the matrimonial property includes property in relation to which the claim under accrued jurisdiction is brought, and therefore there is a claim under the Family Law Act1975 (the…