Fendon and Sloke

[2008] FamCA 1179

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FENDON & SLOKE [2008] FamCA 1179

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Consent orders

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Fendon

RESPONDENT: Mr Sloke

FILE NUMBER: MLC 3768 Of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 22 December 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 22 December 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Hogg

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Hogg and Reid

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Johns

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Dobinson Davey Lawyers

Orders

1. That BY CONSENT there be orders in accordance with the minutes of proposed orders marked Exhibit “A” sealed and attached hereto AND IT IS DIRECTED that such minutes remain upon the Court file.

2. That the solicitor for the husband engross the minutes and deliver them by electronic transmission to my Associate within 7 days.

3. That there be leave to the trustee of the relevant superannuation fund to be heard if upon receipt of the orders, it considers it has not been provided natural justice.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER:  MLC 3768 of 2007

MS FENDON

Applicant

And

MR SLOKE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a matter in which I have been managing the file for a fair piece of 2008 in its progress to trial.  The trial was listed approximately a week ago, but the parties at that stage had resolved the matter. 

2. As a result of the matter remaining in my docket, as it is called, I am familiar with the background and, in particular the financial circumstances of each party.  In addition to that I have had the benefit of having considerable discussion with both practitioners as to what the issues were in dispute and how the matter was to proceed.  As a result of that I am able to say that I am familiar with the structure that the parties have ultimately settled upon, and I can say that it is well within the range of possible outcomes had the matter run to trial.

3. In those circumstances, for the purposes of s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), I say I am satisfied that the orders are just and equitable and I propose to make them. 

I certify that the preceding Three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin

Associate: 

Date:  5 January 2009