De Silva & Ratnayake

Case [2021] FedCFamC1F 347


FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

De Silva & Ratnayake [2021] FedCFamC1F 347 

File number(s): SYC 6075 of 2021
Judgment of: SCHONELL J
Date of judgment: 24 December 2021
Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – Exclusion from matrimonial home – Where the wife seeks the sole use and occupation of the matrimonial home – Where the husband opposes the wife’s application and submits that the parties can co-exist under one roof – Consideration of the circumstances of the parties and whether an exclusive occupation order is necessary – No order for the exclusive use and occupation of the home made.

FAMILY LAW – FINANCIAL – Where the wife seeks an interim costs order – Where the parties executed a Binding Financial Agreement – Whether a clause in the Agreement addressing spousal maintenance was void pursuant to s 90E – Where it was found that the clause was not void.

FAMILY LAW – FINANCIAL – Where the wife seeks an interim costs order under s 117 – Where the wife seeks costs order for litigation funding – Consideration of the financial capacity of both parties – Where there is financial disparity between the parties – Where justice may be compromised if no order made – Costs order made.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 74, 90E, 114, 117
Cases cited:

Ellerton & Jennings (2021) FLC 94-059; [2021] FedCFamC1A 39;

Dickinson & Packam [2021] FamCA 298

Ming & Dao [2020] FamCA 726

Mullane v Mullane (1983) 158 CLR 436; [1983] HCA 4

Naylen & Naylen [2021] FamCA 392

Ryder & Bonham [2017] FamCA 979

Salvage & Fosse (2020) FLC 93-96; [2020] FamCAFC 144

Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 65
Date of hearing: 23 December 2021
Place: Sydney
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Cummings SC
Solicitor for the Applicant: Mills Oakley Law Firm
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Williams QC
Solicitor for the Respondent: Jo-Anna F.S. Moy Solicitor

ORDERS

SYC 6075 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS DE SILVA

Applicant

AND:

MR RATNAYAKE

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

SCHONELL J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 DECEMBER 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The husband shall pay the wife within 28 days the sum of $40,000 by way of interim costs.

2.On a without admissions basis the husband is restrained from abusing, insulting, belittling, rebuking or otherwise denigrating the wife.

3.On a without admissions basis the husband will not issue and is hereby restrained from issuing to the wife a notice to vacate the property at B Street, Suburb C, New South Wales under the provisions of Clause 11A of the Financial Agreement executed by the parties and dated 7 March 2013.

4.The wife's Amended Application in a Case and the husband's Response to that Amended Application is otherwise dismissed.

5.The matter is otherwise adjourned to the Docket Registrar on a date to be fixed for a procedural hearing.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in…

Continue reading De Silva & Ratnayake

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
De Silva & Ratnayake [2021] FedCFamC1F 347
Case
[2021] FedCFamC1F 347
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the wife, Dr. [Name], brought an application against the husband, [Name], in the Family Court of Australia. The dispute centred on various family law matters, including property settlement, child support, and parenting arrangements. Both parties had failed to comply with court-ordered deadlines for filing affidavits, which led to the wife's application for the husband's affidavit to be disregarded. However, the Court granted the husband permission to rely on his affidavit, subject to certain objections.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the husband's late-filed affidavit should be considered, and if so, whether any objections to it should be upheld. The Court also had to consider the wife's submissions regarding her mental health and the impact of the proceedings on her condition. The wife's counsel argued that the husband's affidavit should not be relied upon due to the late filing and sought to have certain objections taken to it. The husband's counsel, on the other hand, argued that the late filing should not disqualify the affidavit and sought to have the objections dismissed.

The Court found that while the husband's affidavit was indeed filed late, it should still be considered due to the significant progress made in the proceedings and the need to resolve the issues at hand. The Court also addressed the objections raised by the wife and determined that some of them were valid, while others were not. The Court emphasised the importance of the wife's mental health and the need for her to be supported during the proceedings, as recommended by her psychiatrist. Ultimately, the Court made orders that took into account the wife's mental health and the need for a fair and efficient resolution of the family law issues.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Neither of the parties complied with court directions for the filing of affidavits; both were late, and in the case of the husband, his affidavit material was filed very late. Senior counsel for the wife sought that the Court not permit the husband to rely upon his affidavit, but in circumstances where he were to be granted leave, that certain objections be taken to it. The Court granted the husband leave to rely upon his affidavit subject to objections, and the Court also dealt with various objections.BRIEF BACKGROUND FACTS The parties commenced living together in March 2000 in Country E and were married in 2000 in Country F. The parties have two children aged 20 and 16; the youngest child is in Year 10 at school. The children reside with the parties in the former matrimonial home at Suburb C. The parties initially separated between February 2011 and December 2012 according to the wife, and between January 2011 and September 2012 according to the husband. Nothing turns on the difference in the dates for the purposes of this application. The wife says the parties separated on a final basis in March 2021; the husband contending in September 2020. Again, for the purposes of this application, it is clear that as at March 2021, both parties were of the view that the relationship was at an end. The parties arrived in Australia in 2010 and the wife says that she returned to Country F in February 2011 with the children. In December 2012, she says she returned to Australia and the parties resumed cohabitation. Following her return, the wife states that she became depressed and consulted a psychiatrist, and has since April 2013 been under her care. Dr D is the wife's psychiatrist and in a number of reports, one annexed to her affidavit sworn 7 September 2021, being a report dated 31 August 2021, and another being a report dated 19 October 2021 attached to the wife's affidavit sworn 29 October 2021. Dr D opines that the wife suffers from bi-polar disorder. In her affidavit at [6] she states: "I believe her mental health will benefit from her not having to relocate at the current time having regard to her stress as a result of the separation." In her report dated 31 August 2021 report, Dr D records the following at [3]:…Given her improvement with the recommended medication and her capacity to maintain normal activities of daily living and improve her relationship with both her children, the prognosis is optimal for her position. People who have any bi-polar disorder are more likely to feel emotions, both positive and negative in a much more heightened way. Thus it is highly probable that she would be more emotionally impacted by the process. I would strongly recommend that she be placed in a room separate from the court with verbal access between her solicitor and herself. The process the doctor referred to was the current proceedings. In the same report, the doctor identifies at [4]: "During the period of time she has been a patient (8 years) she has not indicated that there has been any risk of harm to herself or others."

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.