FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – Where the respondent husband made an application at the hearing – Where the adjournment was strongly opposed by the applicant wife – Adjournment granted due to the personal circumstances of the husband –Where senior counsel for the wife sought alternate orders as a term and condition of the adjournment being granted by the Court – Where the husband is in arrears of previous orders and the wife is in need of spousal maintenance – Where the husband has changed his position as to the source of the funds to be used which had been previously been agreed to – Indemnity costs – Orders made.
The respondent husband’s application for an adjournment of these proceedings is granted.
This matter is to be adjourned for further hearing to Monday 23rd November 2015 at 10.00 am.
The respondent husband sign an authority to C Partners which document is annexure ‘A’ to these orders (“the Authority”) and do all such other things and sign all such other documents necessary to cause and permit the following payments to be made forthwith to the applicant wife by B Pty Ltd as trustee of the Gadde Family Trust:
(a) The sum of $27 239.04 – to account for the arrears in respect of payments due to the wife pursuant to orders made 9 March 2015 and 17 March 2015; and
(b) The sum of $45 000 – to permit the wife to meet rental costs for 6 months.
Pending further order and within 7 days, the respondent husband cause to be paid to the applicant wife by B Pty Ltd as trustee of the Gadde Family Trust the sum of $25 017.
The respondent husband sign an authority to C Partners which document is annexure ‘B’ to these orders (“the Authority No. 2”) and do all such things and…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Gadde & Gadde
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Gadde & Gadde [2015] FamCA 617
Case
[2015] FamCA 617
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Gadde & Gadde*, the parties were the applicants and the respondents, and the dispute concerned an application for an order for possession of land. The matter came before McClelland J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondents were entitled to remain in possession of the land, notwithstanding the applicants' claim to ownership and right to possession. This involved an examination of the legal basis for the respondents' occupation and whether any equitable or contractual rights subsisted that would defeat the applicants' legal title.
McClelland J considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding the circumstances under which the respondents came into possession of the land and the nature of any agreements or understandings that may have existed. The court applied principles of property law and contract law to determine whether the respondents had established a legal or equitable interest in the land that would justify their continued occupation. The court's reasoning focused on the absence of any demonstrable legal or equitable right that would override the applicants' registered title.
The court ordered that the respondents deliver up possession of the land to the applicants.