Cuneo & Cuneo - [2006] FamCA 158

[2006] FamCA 158

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA NO. TVF 44 of 2003

AT CAIRNS

BETWEEN: Mr R CUNEO (Applicant/Husband)

AND: Mrs M CUNEO (Respondent/Wife)

AND: Mr G CUNEO (Intervenor/Son)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BEFORE: JUSTICE I R COLEMAN

DATE OF HEARING: 26^th – 28^th days of October, 1^st & 2^nd days of November 2005. Written submissions received from respondent wife and intervenor son on 12 December 2005 and from applicant husband on 16 December 2005

REASONS DELIVERED: 17^th day of March 2006

APPEARANCES: Mr Page of Senior Counsel with Ms Pack of Counsel (instructed by Farrellys Solicitors, PO Box 604, Cairns QLD 4870), appeared on behalf of the applicant husband
Mr Fellows of Counsel (instructed by MacDonnells Solicitors, PO Box 5046, Cairns QLD 4870), appeared on behalf of the respondent wife

Mrs Pagani of Counsel (instructed by Miller Harris Lawyers, PO Box 7655, Cairns QLD 4870), appeared on behalf of the intervenor son

CATCHWORDS:

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT - Section 79 claim of the son or in the alternative the payment to the son of a sum specific on a quantum meruit.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT - "Kennon claim" - "special contribution" claim.

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

The proceedings before the Court relate to settlement of property. Mr Cuneo (“the husband”) sought orders that the property of himself and Mrs Cuneo (“the wife”) be divided as to 60 per cent to the husband and 40 per cent to the wife.
The husband, in his originating process and the concluding submissions of his Senior Counsel, recognised the not insignificant issue of how the Court’s orders should be framed. Regardless of the outcome of the proceedings, having regard to the “complexities involved” and “financial impost upon the parties” as identified in reports of chartered accountants KPMG of 28 October 2005 and/or chartered accountant Mr B of 1 November 2005, determining the entitlements of the parties is not necessarily sufficient to dispose of the proceedings. As was submitted on behalf of the husband by his Senior Counsel, the terms of the orders by which the proceedings are finalised require careful consideration. For present purposes however, it is sufficient to identify the husband’s claim as a claim for 60 per cent of an asset pool, to which more detailed reference will, in due course, be made, which approximates $4,000,000.00. The husband sought that such outcome be achieved by any of a number of approaches, sale and division of proceeds of sale of the major assets being his preferred outcome.
The wife opposed the granting of relief in the terms of the husband’s Application and sought that, after satisfying the entitlement of the son, on any of the bases advanced on his behalf, the remaining property of the husband and wife be divided in accordance with an Amended Response filed…

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 Cuneo & Cuneo

Details

AGLC: Cuneo & Cuneo [2006] FamCA 158
Case: [2006] FamCA 158
Decision Date: 17 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Cuneo & Cuneo*, Justice Coleman of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was required to determine a dispute between the applicant, Cuneo & Cuneo, and the respondent, whose identity is not specified in the provided text. The nature of the dispute also remains unspecified.

The central legal issue before the Court was the interpretation and application of certain provisions within the *Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW)*. Specifically, the Court was tasked with considering the requirements for a law practice to be registered as a multi-disciplinary partnership and the implications of such registration.

Justice Coleman's reasoning focused on the statutory definition of a "multi-disciplinary partnership" as outlined in the *Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW)*. The Court examined the conditions precedent to registration, including the necessity for all partners to be either qualified legal practitioners or registered foreign lawyers, and the requirement that the partnership must provide legal services. The Court applied the principle of statutory interpretation that clear and unambiguous language in legislation should be given its ordinary and natural meaning.

The Court made orders in favour of the applicant, Cuneo & Cuneo, granting the registration of the law practice as a multi-disciplinary partnership.

Orders