Gairola & Lakmali

Case [2021] FamCA 174


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gairola & Lakmali [2021] FamCA 174

File number(s): DGC 774 of 2017
Judgment of: HARTNETT J
Date of judgment: 14 April 2021
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Applications by Applicant and Respondent for apportionment of property interests – cohabitation period of approximately fifteen years – two children of the marriage – add-backs – where the Applicant sought division of the net asset pool – assessment of contributions – just and equitable distribution.
Legislation:

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s. 140;

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75(2), 79, 90SM

Cases cited:

Bell & Nahos [2016] FamCAFC 244;

Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116;

Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605;

R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong [1976] HCA 39;

Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52;

Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon [2003] HCA 48;

Wirth v Wirth [1956] HCA 71.

Number of paragraphs: 67
Date of last submission/s: 1 March 2021
Date of hearing: 26 & 27 November 2020; and
21 December 2020
Place: Melbourne
Solicitor for the Applicant: Starnet Legal Pty Ltd (by video link)
Respondent: In person (by video link)

ORDERS

DGC 774 of 2017
BETWEEN:

MR GAIROLA

Applicant

AND:

MS LAKMALI

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

HARTNETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 APRIL 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The funds held on behalf of the parties in the Starnet Legal Trust Account be forthwith paid out as follows:

(a)the sum of $154,702.18 to the Applicant husband (‘the husband’); and

(b)the sum of $330,005.80 to the Respondent wife (‘the wife’).

Any additional interest sum that may have accrued since the trial and not required to meet the payments provided for shall be apportioned and paid out to each of the parties in a percentage adjustment of 37% to the Applicant husband and 63% to the Respondent wife.

2.The monies held in the joint account of the parties being NAB account no. …03 together with any interest that may have accrued in respect of such monies shall become the property of the wife and within 14 days hereof, the husband do all acts and things necessary to give effect to this order including the release of such funds to the wife.

3.Each party forego any claim they may have to any superannuation benefits belonging to or earned by the other.

4.Each of the Applicant and the Respondent is otherwise hereby declared to be solely entitled to all items of property which are presently in his and/or her respective possession and control and each party shall indemnify the other with respect to any and all liabilities that may attach to such property.

5.Otherwise all extant applications are dismissed.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

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…

Continue reading Gairola & Lakmali

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Gairola & Lakmali [2021] FamCA 174
Case
[2021] FamCA 174
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Gairola v Lakmali*, heard by Hartnett J, the applicant husband and respondent wife sought the apportionment of their property interests following a cohabitation period of approximately fifteen years and the birth of two children. The applicant sought a division of the net asset pool, with the court required to assess contributions and ensure a just and equitable distribution.

The central legal issues before the court concerned the assessment of the parties' respective contributions to the marriage and the ultimate division of their property pool in a manner that was just and equitable. This included considerations of any "add-backs" that might be relevant to the net asset pool.

Hartnett J ordered the distribution of funds held in the Starnet Legal Trust Account, with the husband to receive $154,702.18 and the wife $330,005.80. Any accrued interest was to be apportioned 37% to the husband and 63% to the wife. Monies in a joint NAB account were to become the sole property of the wife within 14 days, with the husband to facilitate this transfer. Both parties were to forego claims to each other's superannuation benefits. Each party was declared solely entitled to property in their possession, with mutual indemnification for liabilities attaching to that property. All other extant applications were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

DGC 774 of 2017

BETWEEN:

MR GAIROLA

Applicant

AND:

MS LAKMALI

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

HARTNETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 APRIL 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The funds held on behalf of the parties in the Starnet Legal Trust Account be forthwith paid out as follows:

(a) the sum of $154,702.18 to the Applicant husband (‘the husband’); and

(b) the sum of $330,005.80 to the Respondent wife (‘the wife’).

Any additional interest sum that may have accrued since the trial and not required to meet the payments provided for shall be apportioned and paid out to each of the parties in a percentage adjustment of 37% to the Applicant husband and 63% to the Respondent wife.

2. The monies held in the joint account of the parties being NAB account no. …03 together with any interest that may have accrued in respect of such monies shall become the property of the wife and within 14 days hereof, the husband do all acts and things necessary to give effect to this order including the release of such funds to the wife.

3. Each party forego any claim they may have to any superannuation benefits belonging to or earned by the other.

4. Each of the Applicant and the Respondent is otherwise hereby declared to be solely entitled to all items of property which are presently in his and/or her respective possession and control and each party shall indemnify the other with respect to any and all liabilities that may attach to such property.

5. Otherwise all extant applications are dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

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 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

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.