EDWARDS & CANDEE

[2019] FCCA 2886

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EDWARDS & CANDEE [2019] FCCA 2886

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Property proceedings – proceedings transferred to the Family Court of Australia – order made.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, s.39

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.8.02

Cases cited:

Morris & Rosetti [2017] FamCA 249

Surridge & Surridge [2017] FamCAFC 10,

Applicant: MR EDWARDS

Respondent: MS CANDEE

File Number: PAC 3548 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Newbrun

Hearing date: 25 September 2019

Date of Last Submission: 25 September 2019

Delivered at: Parramatta

Delivered on: 17 October 2019

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Mr Lloyd

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Daniel

ORDERS

1. These proceedings are forthwith transferred to the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta, with the matter to be mentioned on 30 October 2019 at 9:30am.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Edwards & Candee is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 3548 of 2017

MR EDWARDS

Applicant

And

MS CANDEE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The within Reasons for Judgment relate to this Court’s recent Order that these property proceedings be transferred to the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta.

Issues in dispute

1. The issues in dispute include the following:

   a)whether or not the husband’s “hurt on duty” pension should be notionally commuted to a lump sum figure (a value of $1,860,332 has been attributed to this pension) and included in the balance sheet (counsel for the husband contended that the decision of Surridge & Surridge [2017] FamCAFC 10, a decision of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, an appeal from a decision of Foster J in the Family Court of Australia, is relevant in this context);

   b)whether or not the parties, or one of them, or the wife’s company A Pty Ltd, owes taxation debts to the Australian Taxation Office of about $120,000 (such debts relating to the company’s superannuation guarantee, NPA reach, PAYG withholding liabilities);

   c)whether or not an amount of in excess of $300,000, allegedly received by the wife from the mortgage loan account over a property at Town B should be added back into the balance sheet;

   d)the appropriate assessment of contributions during the parties relationship, and post separation contributions by the parties;

   e)the appropriate valuations of two pieces of real estate;

   f)the appropriate valuation of the wife’s interest in her above company;

   g)whether or not certain payments by the wife’s company to the wife, should be assessed as taxable under Division 7A of the Income Tax Assessment Act, 1936 (determination of this issue will require, inter alia, examination of the loan accounts between the wife’s company and the wife, and the appropriate construction of relevant provisions of Division 7A of the said Act).

   h)The needs of the parties under section 75(2) of the Family Law Act, 1975.

Relevant statutory provisions and principles

1. The Court refers to the decision of Tree J in Morris & Rosetti