Dallal & Maroun

Case [2023] FedCFamC2F 1165

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Dallal & Maroun [2023] FedCFamC2F 1165

File number(s): CAC 1274 of 2019
Judgment of: JUDGE W J NEVILLE
Date of judgment: 8 September 2023 
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Property – consistent non-disclosure by Husband – Wife and four young children remain living in country New South Wales in crisis accommodation – Husband relies heavily on financial assistance from his family who provide for any and all of his financial needs including regular airfares to visit family and friends in Country B – significant unreliability of Husband’s evidence – multiple witnesses on the Husband’s behalf not called and no explanation given why this was so – on one view of the evidence the property pool now basically comprises debt, while on another view, the dire financial plight of the parties but primarily the Wife is due to the Husband’s apparent dissipation of assets – in accordance with long-standing authority where there is significant lack of financial disclosure wide discretion available to the Court which was exercised in terms to grant the Orders sought by the Wife – significant evidence of Husband’s financial control over the Wife albeit that some part might be considered to be culturally acceptable given that the parties are adherents to the Islamic faith tradition.  
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.75(2)(o)
Cases cited:

 Bevan v Bevan (2013) 279 FLR 1; (2013) 49 Fam LR 387

Black & Kellner (1992) 15 Fam LR 343

Chang v Su (2002) 170 FLR 244; (2002) 29 Fam LR 406

Chapman v Chapman (2015) 51 Fam LR 176

Dickons v Dickons (2014) 50 Fam LR 244

Fields v Smith (2015) FLC 93-638; (2016) 53 Fam LR 1

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Hall v Hall (2016) 257 CLR 490

Hsiao v Fazarri (2020) 94 ALJR 961; (2020) 383 ALR 446; (2020) 61 Fam LR 465

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

AJO & GRO (2005) 33 Fam LR 134

In the Marriage of Pierce (1998) 24 Fam LR 377

In the Marriage of R (2002) 169 FLR 243; 29 Fam LR 230

Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108

White and Tulloch v White (1995) 19 Fam LR 696

Division: Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs: 89
Date of last submission/s: 3 May 2023
Date of hearing: 3 – 5 April 2023
Place: Canberra
Counsel for the Applicant Ms S Baker-Goldsmith
Solicitor for the Applicant KP Carmody
Counsel for the First Respondent  Ms L M Saw
Solicitor for the First Respondent Vozella Lawyers

ORDERS

CAC 1274 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:

MS DALLAL
Applicant
AND:

MR MAROUN
Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE W J NEVILLE

DATE OF ORDER:

8 SEPTEMBER 2023

ON A FINAL BASIS, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.By way of final property order pursuant to section 79 of the Family Law Act, within 42 days of this Order the Respondent is to pay to…

Continue reading Dallal & Maroun

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dallal & Maroun [2023] FedCFamC2F 1165
Case
[2023] FedCFamC2F 1165
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the case of Ms Dallal versus Mr Maroun involved a dispute over property settlement following the breakdown of their marriage. Ms Dallal, the applicant, sought a final property settlement from Mr Maroun, the respondent, who had consistently failed to disclose his financial situation. The couple had four young children, who remained in crisis accommodation in New South Wales, while Mr Maroun continued to receive substantial financial support from his family, including regular airfares to visit family and friends in another country. The court was required to determine whether Mr Maroun’s lack of disclosure and financial mismanagement warranted a significant financial adjustment in favour of Ms Dallal.

The court needed to address whether Mr Maroun’s non-disclosure of financial information and his apparent dissipation of assets warranted a significant property settlement in favour of Ms Dallal. The court also considered the significant financial control Mr Maroun exerted over Ms Dallal, despite some aspects of this control potentially being culturally acceptable within their Islamic faith tradition. Given the unreliability of Mr Maroun’s evidence and his failure to call key witnesses, the court had to decide whether these factors justified a substantial property adjustment.

The court exercised its discretion to grant the property orders sought by Ms Dallal, reflecting the long-standing authority that allows for a wide discretion in cases of significant non-disclosure. The court found that the property pool was either heavily in debt or that the financial plight of the parties was primarily due to Mr Maroun’s dissipation of assets. The court found Mr Maroun’s evidence to be significantly unreliable and noted the absence of critical witnesses without explanation. Consequently, the court ordered Mr Maroun to pay Ms Dallal $300,000 within 42 days, injuncted him from leaving Australia until the payment was made, and required him to indemnify Ms Dallal against any liabilities associated with the property he retained. Each party was also required to submit written submissions on costs within 21 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

CAC 1274 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS DALLAL

Applicant

AND:

MR MAROUN

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE W J NEVILLE

DATE OF ORDER:

8 SEPTEMBER 2023

ON A FINAL BASIS, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. By way of final property order pursuant to section 79 of the Family Law Act, within 42 days of this Order the Respondent is to pay to the Applicant the sum of $300,000.

2. Pursuant to section 114(3) of the Family Law Act, the Respondent is injuncted from leaving Australia until full payment of the amount in Order 1 is made to the Applicant.

3. The Respondent will indemnify the Applicant and keep her indemnified in respect of any liabilities in his name or associated with any property he will retain pursuant to these Orders including but not limited to the property at C Street, Town D.

4. Absent any Application, within 21 days, being by 29 September 2023, each party is to file and serve Written Submissions of no more than 2 pages in length in relation to costs.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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.