Fletcher and Jones

[2012] FamCA 455

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FLETCHER & JONES [2012] FamCA 455

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Interim property orders

Gabel & Yardley (2008) FLC 93-386
Poletti & Poletti (1990) (unreported)
Strahan & Strahan (Interim Property Orders) (2011) FLC 93-466
Wilson & Wilson (1989) FLC 92-033

APPLICANT: Ms Fletcher

RESPONDENT: Mr Jones

FILE NUMBER: BRC 3721 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 18 June 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J

HEARING DATE: 22 May 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Hackett of Counsel appearing for the Applicant Wife

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Hirst & Co

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Jenny Hogan of Counsel appearing for the Respondent Husband

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Barry Nilsson Lawyers

Orders

1. That the Wife’s Amended Application in a Case filed 12 April 2012 and Application in a Case filed 29 February 2012 be dismissed.

2. That the Husband’s cross-application as contained in his Response to an Application in a Case filed 17 February 2012 be dismissed. 

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Fletcher & Jones 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 3721  of 2011

Ms Fletcher

Applicant

And

Mr Jones

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is the Wife’s Application in a Case for interim property orders, the fruits of which the Wife would seek to apply to her legal fees in the furtherance of these proceedings for final property settlement.   

2. The Wife is also the Applicant in the substantive proceedings.  Theirs was a de facto relationship of almost seven years in length, from approximately July 2002 to 10 May 2009.  Despite the fact the parties never married, for ease of reference I will refer to them in my reasons as the Husband and the Wife. 

3. Notwithstanding their relatively short relationship, the parties nonetheless amassed considerable wealth and real property throughout its duration.  However, as is so often the nature of disputes in this court, despite both parties deposing to a capital position of somewhere between $10M and $18M, the parties now find themselves without the requisite liquidity to fund the continuation of these legal proceedings. 

4. This matter came before me on 22 May 2012 for the Wife’s application to sell three groups of commercial properties by way of an interim property settlement.  The Husband submits this application ought be dismissed and seeks by way of cross-application that the parties sell the former matrimonial home. 

5. The Wife has resided in the former matrimonial home at S Street, Brisbane Suburb L since separation and in fact now continues to reside there with her new husband and her three sons from her first marriage. 

6. The former matrimonial home is a substantial property in Brisbane Suburb L. 

7. The commercial properties which the Wife seeks to be sold are situated at Gold Coast Suburb A, Brisbane Suburb B and C Street, Brisbane Suburb D. 

The parties’ proposals