Darmody and Sinton and Anor

Link copied
Case Copied 12 min read

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DARMODY & SINTON & ANOR [2017] FCCA 2238
Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – De facto property proceedings – joinder of third party – whether joinder of a registered mortgagee is necessary to effect a just and equitable settlement between the parties to a de facto relationship – if not, whether the Respondent ought to indemnify the Applicant against any losses she suffers as a result of defaulting on the mortgage loan.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.114(3), 90AF(1), 90AF(2), 114

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.11.01

Gee & Luxford & Anor [2015] FCCA 2944
Wayne & Dillon & Anor [2008] FamCAFC 204

Applicant: MS DARMODY
Respondent: MR SINTON
Proposed Second Respondent: MR WATSON
File Number: MLC 12526 of 2016
Judgment of: Judge Small
Hearing date: 7 September 2017
Date of Last Submission: 7 September 2017
Delivered at: Melbourne
Delivered on: 8 September 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Byrne
Solicitors for the Applicant: Nicholas P Byrne
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Salamanca
Solicitors for the Respondent: Stephen Farmer & Associates
Counsel for the Proposed Second Respondent: Mr Laidlaw
Solicitors for the Proposed Second Respondent: Gleeson & Co T/A Moama Law

ORDERS

  1. The Application in a Case filed 1 August 2017 is dismissed.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 12526 of 2016

MS DARMODY

Applicant

And

MR SINTON

Respondent

And

MR WATSON

Proposed Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. These are de facto property settlement proceedings between Ms Darmody (“the Applicant”) and Mr Sinton (“the Respondent”).

  2. On 1 August 2017 the Applicant filed an Application in a Case in which she sought the following orders:

    1.Stay of proceedings now proposed by MR WATSON of (omitted) as THIRD PARTY to this application, as a registered mortgagee, to sell property being the residence and property of the APLICANT (sic) situate and known as Property A (sic), pursuant to the claimed rights as mortgagee under an instrument of mortgage registered number (omitted) secured over that property, in respect of the principal sum of $200,000 and interest, until such time as this honourable Court may determine, pending or following the outcome of proceedings brought by the Applicant against the Respondent for a financial settlement.

    2.That the Respondent MR SINTON indemnify the Applicant MS DARMODY  in respect of all economic losses and damages sustained or now potentially to be suffered by the Applicant, in the event of this honourable Court electing not to grant the stay sought in paragraph no. 1 preceding, arising out of the Applicants (sic) position as a defaulting mortgagor, including any damages sustained as a consequence of the displacement of the applicant and her family arising from the potential loss of her home before hearing of her claim against the Respondent for a financial settlement, being the subject property of the Third Party’s threatened…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Darmody and Sinton and Anor and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2017] FCCA 2238
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceeding concerned an application by Darmody and Sinton (the applicants) against an unnamed respondent (the respondent). The nature of the dispute and the specific relief sought by the applicants are not detailed in the provided text, beyond the fact that it was an "Application in a Case" filed on 1 August 2017. The decision was made by Judge Small.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicants' "Application in a Case" should be granted. The provided text does not elaborate on the specific grounds or legal arguments underpinning this application.

Judge Small dismissed the applicants' application. No reasoning or legal principles applied by the court in reaching this decision are provided in the text.

The court ordered that the Application in a Case filed 1 August 2017 be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Application in a Case filed 1 August 2017 is dismissed.

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.