FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| COTTARD & CRICHTON | [2016] FamCA 819 |
| FAMILY LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Objections to evidence – Where the husband objects to part of the evidence upon which the wife sought to rely – Where the wife attaches written communications in connection with an attempt to negotiate a settlement of the dispute – Where the material attracts provisions of s 131 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – Whether there should be a broad or narrow construction of s 131(2)(g) of the Evidence Act – Where the offers of settlement do not attract provisions of s 131(2)(g) of the Evidence Act– Where the objection is upheld. FAMILY LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disqualification application – Where the husband makes a disqualification application on the basis that offers of settlement had been read – Where the application is dismissed. FAMILY LAW - PROPERTY – Interim – Where the wife seeks an order for a lump sum by way of interim property settlement or interim costs – Where the wife seeks spousal maintenance – Where the husband contends the wife is entitled to no order – Where the husband has current assets worth in excess of $25 million – Where the husband undertook to the wife to look after her financial requirements – Where the husband has ceased to provide any ongoing support for the wife – Where the parties’ luxurious lifestyle during their relationship is taken into account – Where the husband is ordered to pay the wife a lump sum amount and spousal maintenance – Where the wife’s interim needs will be reduced on a periodic basis by the amount of income the wife receives from her personal exertion – Where the wife’s applications in relation to a motor vehicle is dismissed. FAMILY LAW - INJUNCTIONS – Where application for property injunctions is dismissed. |
| Births, Deaths & Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) | |
| Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27 | |
Continue reading COTTARD & CRICHTON
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- COTTARD & CRICHTON [2016] FamCA 819
- Case
- [2016] FamCA 819
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the communications attracted the privilege against disclosure under section 131 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth), and specifically how section 131(2)(g) of that Act should be construed in relation to offers of settlement. Additionally, the court considered the husband's application for disqualification based on the wife's reliance on settlement communications, and the wife's applications for interim property settlement, spousal maintenance, and property injunctions.
Watts J reasoned that the offers of settlement did not fall within the exceptions to the privilege provided by section 131(2)(g) of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth), adopting a broad construction of the provision. Consequently, the husband's objection to this part of the evidence was upheld, and his disqualification application was dismissed. Taking into account the parties' former luxurious lifestyle, the husband's substantial assets exceeding $25 million, and his prior undertaking to support the wife, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife a lump sum of $50,000 within 14 days and interim spousal maintenance of $3,000 per week, subject to a quarterly adjustment based on the wife's income exceeding $3,120. The wife's applications concerning a motor vehicle and for property injunctions were dismissed, and costs were reserved for both parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Within 14 days the husband pay to the wife the sum of $50,000.
2.
Pending further order, the husband pay to the wife by way of spousal maintenance the sum of $3,000 per week provided that the wife shall inform the husband in writing each quarter of the amount by which her net income has exceeded $3,120 each quarter ($240 per week x 13 weeks) and the husband will be entitled to deduct that amount from the payment or payments he is next due to make to the wife pursuant to this order.
3.
The wife’s applications in relation to the German motor vehicle and for injunctions be dismissed.
4.
Both parties’ costs are reserved.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
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.