Crand and Crand - [2018] FamCA 878

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CRAND & CRAND

[2018] FamCA 878

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim proceedings – Where the husband seeks an interim property order for payment of litigation expenses – Where the wife seeks that the application be dismissed – Where the husband has not filed a Financial Statement since May 2016 – Where the financial circumstances of the husband are not clear – Where financial transactions between the husband, his parents and their companies continues to be blurred adding further uncertainty to the financial position of the husband – Consideration of Strahan & Strahan (2011) FLC 93-466 and the principles to be applied to interim or partial property orders – Where the interests of justice would not be served if the order sought by the husband is made – Where the application is dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 80

Strahan & Strahan (2011) FLC 93-466; [2011] FamCAFC 126

APPLICANT:

Mr Crand

RESPONDENT:

Ms Crand

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

5368

2013

DATE DELIVERED:

29 October 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Stevenson J

HEARING DATE:

12 October 2018

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

Mr Crand appeared on his own behalf

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Campton SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Newnhams Solicitors

Orders

The Application in a Case of the husband filed on 20 July 2018 is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 5368 of 2013

Mr Crand

Applicant

And

Ms Crand

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The proceedings

Mr Crand (“the husband”) and Ms Crand (“the wife”) have been parties to litigation concerning financial issues, inter alia, since 2013. The wife joined the husband's parents, Mr Crand Snr and Ms Crand Snr, and the companies R Pty Ltd, Q Pty Ltd (“Q”) and F Pty Ltd (“F”) as respondents to the proceedings.
On 20 July 2018 the husband filed an Application in a Case by which he sought the following order:
1.That the Applicant Wife pay or cause to be paid to the trust account of [LL Lawyers] the sum of $279,000 by way of interim provision for litigation expenses for the Respondent Husband.
By a Response to an Application in a Case dated 27 August 2018 the wife sought orders that the husband's application be dismissed and that he pay her costs.

Background

Background material to these proceedings is set out in the Reasons for Judgment of Aldridge…

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 Crand and Crand

Details

AGLC: Crand and Crand [2018] FamCA 878
Case: [2018] FamCA 878
Decision Date: 29 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Crand and Crand*, Stevenson J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application filed by the husband on 20 July 2018. The precise nature of the dispute between the parties is not detailed in the provided extract, but it concerned an application made by the husband.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant the husband's application filed on 20 July 2018. The court was required to determine the merits of this application and decide whether it should be dismissed or otherwise dealt with.

Stevenson J dismissed the husband's application. The reasoning behind this decision is not elaborated upon in the provided text, but the outcome was a clear rejection of the application.

The court ordered that the husband's application filed on 20 July 2018 be dismissed. This order is subject to the formal entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application in a Case of the husband filed on 20 July 2018 is dismissed.

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.