Elgin and Elgin (No 2)

[2012] FamCA 1158

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ELGIN & ELGIN (NO. 2) [2012] FamCA 1158

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Ex Tempore – Adjournment application – Where the application is dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v ANU (2009) 239 CLR 175

APPLICANT: Ms Elgin

RESPONDENT: Mr Elgin

FILE NUMBER: BRC 2909 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 18 July 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Forrest J

HEARING DATE: 18 July 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr North SC
with Mr Sweeney

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Glezer Lanteri

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Hamwood

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Reaburn Solicitors

Orders

1. Application dismissed.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 2909 of 2010

Ms Elgin

Applicant

And

Ms Elgin

Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The parties in these property division proceedings were married for just short of 50 years.  They married, as did many people of their generation, when they were 21 and 20 years old.  They had relatively little in the way of assets at that time but for good doses of youthful energy and drive and dreams of their lives ahead.  Their marriage produced three children, all of whom are now adults rapidly approaching their middle age.  During the early years of their marriage, the husband toiled energetically as a self-employed man in the EF products business.  Simultaneously, the wife toiled energetically, parenting their three children, in the employ of others and also in self-employment.

2. In the later years of their marriage, the EF products business was sold, then the husband transferred his energies successfully to property development.  By the end of their 50 years together, a good fortune has been amassed.  Their very long marriage, however, was unable to be sustained and separation occurred in 2009.  Proceedings for property division were commenced by the wife in this Court in March of 2010.

3. On 16 January 2012, the parties, after months of protracted attempts to reach agreement with respect to the progression of the matter further towards trial through the obtaining of expert valuation evidence in respect of their multitude of assets, consented to directions being made appointing Ms CCC, an accountant, and certain real property valuers to prepare single experts’ reports of valuation for the parties.  Given the assets concerned and the number and style of entities that those assets were owned and controlled through, the process of valuation by those experts was always going to be time-consuming and require an enormous amount of well-directed, cooperative effort by the parties and their legal representatives to be finalised.

4. That said, on 27 January 2012, the parties, through their legal representatives, appeared before the Registrar again.  The matter was then listed for mention before the case management Judge of this registry on 3 February…