CRESWELL & CRESWELL

Case [2015] FCCA 1094


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CRESWELL & CRESWELL [2015] FCCA 1094
Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Application pursuant to section 79A to set aside consent orders – miscarriage of justice by reason of fraud or suppression of evidence – matters to be considered – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, s.79A

Evidence Act1995 (Cth), s.140

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60CLR 336
Lancer & Lancer [2008] FamCAFC 112
Gebert & Gebert (1990) FLC 92-137
Suiker & Suiker (1993) FLC 92-436
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Applicant: MS CRESWELL
Respondent: MR CRESWELL
File Number: ADC 1702 of 2013
Judgment of: Judge Brown
Hearing date: 6 March 2015
Date of Last Submission: 6 March 2015
Delivered at: Adelaide
Delivered on: 4 May 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Anderson
Solicitors for the Applicant: Lamont Black
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Dillon
Solicitors for the Respondent: Douglas Hoskins Legal

ORDERS

  1. The wife’s application to set aside the consent orders made on 29 April 2014 be dismissed.

  2. The wife’s application for spousal maintenance be listed for further directions on 21 July 2015 at 9.30 am.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ADELAIDE

ADC 1702 of 2013

MS CRESWELL

Applicant

And

MR CRESWELL

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. Mr Creswell “the husband” has a bad back.  He finds relief sitting in a spa.  At some time, late in 2011, he and his former wife, Ms Creswell purchased a spa for their former matrimonial home located at Property F. 

  2. The spa is approximately four metres by two metres in dimension and weighs around 400 kilograms.  Two people can manoeuvre it on piano trolleys.  It does not have to be directly plumbed in, but clearly it is awkward to move. 

  3. The spa cost $29,500.00.  It was purchased from (omitted) Pty Ltd.[1]  At the Property F property, it was placed under a pergola in the backyard.  It was behind fencing and could not be seen easily from the street.  Access to the backyard was through a sliding gate and a garage door, both of which could be locked.

    [1]  See annexure C7 to the wife’s affidavit filed 24 April 2014. 

  4. Mr Creswell and Ms Creswell separated, in emotionally charged circumstances, on 24 April 2013.  Mr Creswell works in (country omitted), in the (omitted) industry.  At the time of separation, he worked 28 days on/28 days off, returning home to Adelaide for rest and recuperation.

  5. The parties have two children, twins X and Y, born (omitted) 2008.  At the time of separation, Ms Creswell was employed on a part-time basis as an (occupation omitted).  It is her case that she was X and Y’s primary provider of care.  She also alleged that Mr Creswell was a controlling and domineering spouse, of whom she was frightened.  

  6. Ms Creswell decided to leave the marriage,…

Continue reading CRESWELL & CRESWELL

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Creswell and Creswell [2015] FCCA 1094
Case
[2015] FCCA 1094
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Creswell & Creswell*, the wife sought to set aside consent orders made on 29 April 2014 and also applied for spousal maintenance. The matter came before Judge Brown.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the wife had established grounds to set aside the previously made consent orders. A secondary issue was the wife's entitlement to spousal maintenance.

Judge Brown dismissed the wife's application to set aside the consent orders. The court found that the wife had not satisfied the necessary legal threshold to vitiate the consent orders. The application for spousal maintenance was listed for further directions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The wife’s application to set aside the consent orders made on 29 April 2014 be dismissed.

2.

The wife’s application for spousal maintenance be listed for further directions on 21 July 2015 at 9.30 am.

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.