Darcey & Paine

Case [2023] FedCFamC2F 305


FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Darcey & Paine [2023] FedCFamC2F 305  

File number: ADC 2664 of 2022
Judgment of: JUDGE DICKSON
Date of judgment: 6 March 2023 
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW –  PROPERTY – undefended final hearing – de facto relationship – small asset pool – where respondent has failed to engage in proceedings – where Court is satisfied that respondent is on notice of these proceedings –– significant post separation contributions by the applicant – future needs – just and equitable for there to be a 81/19% split in the applicant’s favour of the net non-superannuation assets – parties to retain their respective superannuation – just and equitable – costs
Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 69ZL, 75, 79, 117

Federal Circuit and Family Court Rules of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 10.26, 10.27

Cases cited:

Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116

In the Marriage of Hayne (1977) FLC 90-265

In the Marriage of Hickey (2003) 30 FamLR 355

In the Marriage of Phillips [2002] FamCA 350

In the Marriage of Russell [1999] FamCA 1875

Jabour & Jabour [2019] FamCAFC 78

Norbis & Norbis [1983] FamCA 47

Ragusa & Ragusa [2021] FedCFamC2F 470

Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108,

Watson & Ling [2017] FamCA 57.

Division: Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs: 111
Date of hearing: 17 February 2023
Place: Adelaide
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Boehm
Solicitor for the Applicant: Westley Di Giorgio Norcock

ORDERS

ADC 2664 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS DARCEY

Applicant

AND:

MR PAINE

Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE DICKSON

DATE OF ORDER:

6 March 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.A Judicial Registrar or Registrar of this Court be appointed as necessary pursuant to section 106A of the Family Law Act (Cth) (‘the Act’), to execute any deeds, documents or instruments in the name of the husband and to do all such acts and things necessary to give validity to the operation to the deed, document or instrument and to implement the within orders.

2.Within one hundred and twenty (120) days of today’s date, the wife do all such things as necessary to transfer the husband’s interest in the whole of the property located at B Street, Town C in the State of South Australia, being the property contained in the Certificate of Title Volume … Folio … (‘the B Street, Town C Property’) and at the sole cost of the wife.

3.Contemporaneously with the transfer of the B Street, Town C property, the wife shall:

(a)Pay out and discharge the joint ANZ Bank Loan secured against the said property; and

(b)Pay any further costs and disbursements arising from implantation of these orders.

4.The wife shall otherwise retain the following assets and liabilities to exclusion of the husband:

(a)The B Street, Town C property subject to any loan secured against that property;

(b)Her share and interest in any bank accounts held in her sole name;

(c)Her Motor…

Continue reading Darcey & Paine

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Darcey & Paine [2023] FedCFamC2F 305
Case
[2023] FedCFamC2F 305
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Darcey v Paine was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Division 2. The proceedings concerned a property settlement application filed by Ms Darcey (the wife) and an application for divorce filed by the wife on 28 November 2022. The husband, Mr Paine, did not appear at the trial, having failed to engage in the proceedings or to comply with any orders of the Court. The Court made orders on an undefended basis. The legal issues in the case were whether it would be just and equitable to make an order altering the existing property rights of the parties as proposed by the wife given the overall circumstances of the case and whether it was just to make an order for costs in the wife's favour. The Court found that it was just and equitable to make an adjustment in favour of the wife of 81 per cent of the net non-superannuation asset pool and with the balance to the husband. The Court also found that it was just to make an order for costs in the wife's favour for the amount sought. The Court ordered that the husband pay the wife's costs of and incidental to these proceedings fixed in the sum of $18,530.00.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.