Galante & Galante and Ors - [2019] FamCA 756

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GALANTE & GALANTE AND ORS

[2019] FamCA 756

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Joinder – Disjoinder application – Where the wife seeks to join third parties (the husband’s partner, the husband’s father and the husband’s brother) to the application in respect of property settlement – Where the third parties oppose joinder and seek disjoinder – Where no orders are sought against the third parties – Where the wife concedes that the purpose of joinder is to pursue the production of documents that she contends have been sought from the husband, are in his control and that he has refused to provide – Orders.

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rr 1.09, 6.01(1), 6.04

B Pty Ltd and Ors v K and Anor (2008) FLC 93-380
Dowling v The Colonial Mutual Life Society (1915) 20 CLR 509
Friar & Friar [2011] FamCAFC 71
Goldsmith v Sperrings Ltd and Ors [1977] 1 WLR 478
Hankinson & De Vries & Ors [2013] FamCA 455
Lindon v The Commonwealth (No. 2) [1996] HCA 14
MacDougal & Benson and Ors [2015] FamCA 552

APPLICANT:

Ms Galante

1st RESPONDENT:

Mr Galante

2nd RESPONDENT:

Ms Dains

3RD RESPONDENT:	Mr B Galante
4TH RESPONDENT:	Mr C Galante

FILE NUMBER:

ADC

3454

2017

DATE DELIVERED:

18 October 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Adelaide

PLACE HEARD:

Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF:

Berman J

HEARING DATE:

4 October 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Morosini

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Di Morosini & Co

COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT:

Mr Livesey QC with Mr Jordan

SOLICITOR FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT:

Jordan & Fowler Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT:

Mr Matta by telephone

SOLICITOR FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT:

Gadens Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT:

Mr Hoffman QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT:

Charlton Rowley

COUNSEL FOR THE 4TH RESPONDENT:

Mr Hoffman QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE 4TH RESPONDENT:

Charlton Rowley

Orders

That the second, third and fourth respondents be disjoined.

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 Galante & Galante 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 ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 3454 of 2017

Ms Galante

Applicant

And

Mr Galante

Respondent

And

Ms Dains
Second Respondent

And

Mr B Galante
Third Respondent

And

Mr C Galante
Fourth Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

By Amended Initiating Application filed 30 August 2019 Ms Galante (“the wife”) seeks orders for property settlement against Mr Galante (“the husband”). Prior to the amendment to the wife’s initiating application, she sought a general order in…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Galante & Galante and Ors and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] FamCA 756
Decision Date: 18 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Galante & Galante and Ors*, Berman J of the Federal Court of Australia was required to consider an application concerning the joinder of parties to proceedings. The applicants sought to disjoin the second, third, and fourth respondents from the action.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the second, third, and fourth respondents should remain parties to the proceedings. This involved an assessment of the relevance and necessity of their continued involvement in the litigation.

Berman J ordered that the second, third, and fourth respondents be disjoined from the proceedings. The precise form of this order was subject to the formal entry of the order in the Court's records.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the second, third and fourth respondents be disjoined.

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.