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 |
| 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
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
These are de facto property settlement proceedings between Ms Darmody (“the Applicant”) and Mr Sinton (“the Respondent”).
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] FCCA 2238
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.