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
- AGLC
- De Silva & Ratnayake [2021] FedCFamC1F 347
- Case
- [2021] FedCFamC1F 347
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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
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.