Dohdi and Mehmet - [2019] FamCA 108

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DOHDI & MEHMET

[2019] FamCA 108

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY ADJUSTMENT – Where discussion of applicable principles – Where both parties seek adjusting orders – Where small cash pool for division – Where assessment of contributions and relevant section 75(2) factors – Where pool divided as to 65 per cent to the wife and balance to the husband.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75, 79

Bevan & Bevan [2014] FamCAFC 19
Chapman & Chapman [2014] FamCAFC 91
Dickons & Dickons [2012] FamCAFC 154
Pandelis & Pandelis [2018] FamCAFC 66
Russell & Russell (1999) FLC 92-877
Scott & Danton [2014] FamCAFC 203
Stanford & Stanford [2012] HCA 52
Teal & Teal [2010] FamCAFC 120

APPLICANT:

Ms Dohdi

RESPONDENT:

Ms Mehmet

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

5460

2015

DATE DELIVERED:

1 March 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Foster J

HEARING DATE:

7 and 8 February 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Cairns

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Sharon Payne Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Conte-Mills

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Warren F Ball & Co

Orders

That the husband and wife sign all necessary documents and do all necessary things so as to authorise and direct that monies presently held in trust for them in a controlled monies account together with interest accrued if any to date of distribution be divided as to 65 per cent to the wife or as she may otherwise direct in writing and 35 per cent to the husband or as he may otherwise direct in writing.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Dohdi & Mehmet has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 5460 of 2015

Ms Dohdi

Applicant

And

Ms Mehmet

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The matter for determination is the question of property settlement as between the applicant wife and the respondent husband.
Final parenting orders in relation to the three children of the parties’ relationship were made by consent on 17 July 2018. In summary, those orders provided:
a)That the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children.
b)That the children live primarily with the mother.
c)That the children spend time with the father on alternate weekends and at other times by agreement during school term, half school holidays and on other special occasions.
Property proceedings were commenced by the applicant wife in her Initiating Application filed 7 June 2016 as amended by her Amended Initiating Application filed 15 November…

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 Dohdi and Mehmet

Details

AGLC: Dohdi and Mehmet [2019] FamCA 108
Case: [2019] FamCA 108
Decision Date: 1 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in *Dohdi and Mehmet* concerned the division of matrimonial assets, specifically monies held in a controlled monies account. The matter came before Foster J of the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was how to equitably divide the funds held in trust between the husband and wife. This required the Court to consider the principles of property settlement within the context of a marriage.

Foster J ordered that the monies held in the controlled monies account, including any accrued interest, be divided such that the wife receives 65 per cent and the husband receives 35 per cent. The parties were directed to sign all necessary documents to give effect to this division, with the wife having the discretion to direct how her share would be distributed.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the husband and wife sign all necessary documents and do all necessary things so as to authorise and direct that monies presently held in trust for them in a controlled monies account together with interest accrued if any to date of distribution be divided as to 65 per cent to the wife or as she may otherwise direct in writing and 35 per cent to the husband or as he may otherwise direct in writing.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.