EL RASHIDY & EL RASHIDY

[2019] FamCA 209

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EL RASHIDY & EL RASHIDY [2019] FamCA 209

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interlocutory proceeding – partial property settlement – sale of assets – trial to commence in two months’ time.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Strahan v Strahan (Interim Property Orders) [2009] FamCAFC 166
Bearup & Bearup (1993) 16 Fam LR 797
Harris & Harris (1993) 16 Fam LR 579
Furtado & Furtado [2011] FamCA 1018

APPLICANT: Ms El Rashidy

RESPONDENT: Mr El Rashidy

FILE NUMBER: MLC 7974 of 2017

DATE DELIVERED: 9 April 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: The Honourable Justice Williams

HEARING DATE: 19 – 21 March 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr North of Queen’s Counsel with Mr Dunlop of Counsel

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Nicholes Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Strum of Queen’s Counsel with Ms Burt of Counsel

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Landers & Rogers

Orders

1. Within 7 days the husband pay all arrears of spousal maintenance owed to the wife pursuant to:

   (a)       Order 7(a) of the orders made 4 October 2017; and such payment be made to the solicitors for the wife;

   (b)       Order 7(p) of the orders made 4 October 2017.

2. All extant interim applications are otherwise dismissed.

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 El Rashidy & El Rashidy 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 7974 of 2017

Ms El Rashidy

Applicant

And

Mr El Rashidy

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 26 February 2019, the wife filed an Amended Application in a Case. The application was listed for hearing in the Judicial Duty List on 19 March 2019. The application was heard on 19, 20 and 21 March 2019.

Interim Issues

1. The following interim issues are disputed:

   a)Whether the business B Group should be sold;

   b)The wife’s application for litigation funding including the sale of properties;

   c)The wife’s application for enforcement of interim consent orders for spousal maintenance;

   d)The husband’s application for variation of the interim  spousal maintenance orders;

   e)Discovery.

Background

1. The parties married in 1993 in Country A and subsequently migrated to Australia. The wife asserts that they separated in 2017. The husband asserts that they separated under the one roof in 2014, and physically separated in 2015. There are four children of the marriage, three of whom are adult. The youngest child, X, aged 12 years, lives with the wife and the older three children live with the husband.

2. On 4 October 2017,…