FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| FIELD & KINGSTON | [2017] FamCA 208 |
| FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim Proceedings – Where the wife seeks a certificate pursuant to Section 128 of the Evidence Act – Where there is insufficient evidence in support of the application – The wife’s application be dismissed. |
Evidence Act 1995 Section s 128
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79
Aitken & Murphy [2011] FamCA 785
Atkinson & Atkinson (1997) FLC 92-728
Ferrall and McTaggart (trustees for Sapphire Trust) v Blyton (2000) FLC 93-054
Jarvis & Pike (2013) 50 Fam LR 593; [2013] FamCAFC 196
| APPLICANT: | Ms Field |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Kingston |
| FILE NUMBER: | PAC | 2095 | of | 2014 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 7 April 2017 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Parramatta |
| PLACE HEARD: | Parramatta |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Hannam J |
| HEARING DATE: | 12 December 2016 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Ms Gillies |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Matthews Folbigg |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Williams |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Barkus Doolan |
Orders
Order 1 sought by the wife in her Amended Application in a Case filed 4 November 2016 is dismissed.
The balance of the application is adjourned to 2.15pm on 23 May 2017 before Registrar Murdoch for further directions.
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 Field & Kingston 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 2095 of 2014
| Ms Field |
Applicant
And
| Mr Kingston |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The Applicant wife, in proceedings with her former husband for a property settlement under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), seeks a number of interim property orders. Only one of the orders sought was pressed at interim hearing on 12 December 2016.
Accordingly, this judgment is concerned with the only order sought by the Applicant wife at interim hearing that a certificate be granted to her pursuant to Section 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (‘the Evidence Act’) regarding evidence to be given as to her income and expenditure.
background
The husband, who is 49, and the wife, who is 42, were married in 2002 and have three children who primarily live with the husband in the former matrimonial home.
The parties separated on a final basis in January 2011 and were divorced in July 2014.
The wife commenced property settlement proceedings by Initiating Application filed 4 May 2015. The matter has progressed very little since the initiation of proceedings.
It appears that the matrimonial property broadly consists of the former matrimonial home in Suburb B, a…
Continue reading Field & Kingston
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Field & Kingston [2017] FamCA 208
- Case
- [2017] FamCA 208
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of the wife's application filed on 4 November 2016. The court was required to decide whether to grant the relief sought in that application.
Hannam J dismissed the specific order sought by the wife in her Amended Application in a Case. The remaining aspects of the wife's application were adjourned for further directions before Registrar Murdoch on 23 May 2017.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Order 1 sought by the wife in her Amended Application in a Case filed 4 November 2016 is dismissed.
2.
The balance of the application is adjourned to 2.15pm on 23 May 2017 before Registrar Murdoch for further directions.
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.