Legal Research
Cases
Dieu & Dieu

Dieu & Dieu

Case [2023] FedCFamC2F 547 17 May 2023

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Contribution

Unconscionable Conduct

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Dieu & Dieu [2023] FedCFamC2F 547

File number(s): PAC 2269 of 2021

Judgment of: JUDGE MURDOCH

Date of judgment: 17 May 2023

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Where the parties were married for 18 years – where there are two adult children of the relationship – where the husband became a litigant in person during the trial as leave was granted to his legal representatives arranged through the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme to withdraw from the proceedings – where the husband amended the relief he sought during final submissions so that both parties now seek to retain the same item of real property - where substantial issue exists as to the nature and composition of the property pool - where there is a remarkable lack of evidence by both parties to ground the findings of fact they seek - where the wife’s Kennon claim is unsubstantiated - where the husband has had the benefit of both items of real property since separation – where the husband has been entirely deficient in his provision of full and frank disclosure - contributions of the parties assessed as equal – adjustment made to the wife on the basis of the husband’s non-disclosure and financial conduct post-separation.

Legislation:
Family Law Act1975 (Cth) ss 75(2), 79, 79(4)(d)-(g), 102NA, 106A

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 190

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 1.04, 6.02, 6.06

Cases cited:
Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116

Black v Kellner (1992) FLC 92-287

NHC & RCH [2004] FamCA 633

Edgehill & Edgehill [2007] FamCA 1102

Fields & Smith [2015] FamCAFC 57

Gollings & Scott [2007] FamCA 397

Hickey v Hickey & Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (Intervener) [2003] FamCA 395

Horrigan & Horrigan [2020] FamCAFC 25

Kennon v Kennon [1997] FamCA 27

Kowaliw and Kowaliw [1981] FamCA 70

Norbis v Norbis [1986] HCA 17

AJO & GRO [2005] FamCA 195

Stanford & Stanford [2012] HCA 52;

Trevi & Trevi [2018] FamCAFC 173;

Weir v Weir (1993) FLC 92-338.

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 196

Date of hearing: 20 – 22 March 2023

Place: Parramatta

Counsel for the Applicant Mr Teoh

Solicitor for the Applicant Sydney Solicitors

The Respondent: Litigant in person
ORDERS

PAC 2269 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS DIEU

Applicant

AND:
MR DIEU

Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE MURDOCH

DATE OF ORDER:

17 May 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The B Street, Suburb C Property
1.The husband retain and the wife have no right, entitlement or interest in the property situate at and known as B Street, Suburb C in the State of New South Wales being the whole of the land in Folio Identifier … (the “B Street, Suburb C Property”).
2.The husband indemnify and keep indemnified the wife in respect of any current of future liabilities…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Dieu & Dieu

Details

AGLC: Dieu & Dieu [2023] FedCFamC2F 547
Case: [2023] FedCFamC2F 547
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dieu and Dieu was a property settlement case. The parties had been married for 18 years and had two adult children. The husband became a litigant in person when his legal representatives withdrew from the proceedings. The wife sought orders for a property settlement under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The husband amended his relief during final submissions and sought orders that the parties retain the same item of real property, the D Street, Suburb C property. The court found that an adjustment should be made to the wife on the basis of the husband’s non-disclosure and financial conduct post-separation. The court assessed the contributions of the parties as equal. The court made orders that the husband retain the B Street, Suburb C property and that the husband’s interest in the D Street, Suburb C property be transferred to the wife. The court further ordered that the husband pay the wife the sum of $240,966 and that the proceeds from the sale of the J Street, Suburb C property be divided equally between the parties.

Orders