Fraser and Fraser

[2013] FamCA 843

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FRASER & FRASER [2013] FamCA 843

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim applications by both husband and wife to sell assets – consideration as to relevant matters – on the facts before the case Court not satisfied that orders as sought should be made – applications dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 114

Strahan & Strahan (Interim property orders) [2009] FamCAFC 166
Marchant [2012] FamCAFC 181

APPLICANT: Mr Fraser

RESPONDENT: Ms Fraser

FILE NUMBER: PAC 920 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 30 October 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Foster J

HEARING DATE: 14 October 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr MacPherson

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Bell Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Glenbrook Legal Services

Orders

1. That the parties’ interim applications as to property are dismissed.

2. Proceedings are adjourned to a procedural hearing before a Registrar on a date to be fixed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Fraser & Fraser 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 PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 920  of 2013

Mr Fraser

Applicant

And

Ms Fraser

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The Proceedings

1. These are proceedings as to property and parenting.

2. The applicant husband filed an initiating application on 6 March 2013 seeking property orders that in summary provided for a sale and division of the proceeds of sale of the family home at C Town, that the husband retain the parties’ business trading as B Pty Ltd at C Town, and that there be a splitting order in the sum of $35,000 from the husband’s superannuation in favour of the wife.

3. The husband filed an amended application on 4 September 2013 seeking, in addition to property orders, parenting orders in relation to the children of the marriage that in summary provided that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, that the children reside primarily with him and that the children spend defined time including alternate weekends and half school holidays with the mother.

4. On 2 April 2013 the wife filed a response to the husband’s initial application. In that response she sought orders as to property that in summary provided for a sale of the family home with net proceeds payable to the wife, that the husband pay to the wife an additional sum of $70 000, that the wife transfer to the husband her interest in the business at C Town, and that there be a splitting order in the sum of $75 000 from the husband’s superannuation in favour of the wife.

5. The present application for determination is the husband’s application in a case filed on 4 September 2013. In that application the husband sought interim orders in relation to parenting and interim orders seeking a sale of the family home at C Town. He relied upon his affidavit in support of the application in a case…