Gannon and Gannon

[2016] FCCA 1177

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GANNON & GANNON [2016] FCCA 1177

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Property – interim orders – injunction sought – injunction refused.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.79

Cases cited:
Gollings & Scott (2007) 37 Fam LR 428; FLC 93-319; [2007] FamCA 397

Applicant: MS GANNON

Respondent: MR GANNON

File Number: SYC 896 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Scarlett

Hearing date: 13 May 2016

Date of Last Submission: 13 May 2016

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 13 May 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Givney

Solicitors for the Applicant: David J.H. Hooper

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Richardson SC

Solicitors for the Respondent: Barkus Doolan

ORDERS

1. The Application for an Order that Pending Further Order the Husband be restrained from disposing of any lump sum payment or payments made by (employer omitted) in relation to his resignation from that employer is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Gannon & Gannon is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYC 896 of 2013

MS GANNON

Applicant

And

MR GANNON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. There is an Application in a Case before the Court today brought by the Wife who is the substantive Applicant.  Her application is to re-open proceedings by way of an interim hearing where judgment is currently reserved and where judgment is expected to be handed down on a date to be fixed next month upon my return from leave. 

2. The order that was sought was that leave be granted to the Applicant Wife to re-open her case for urgent injunctions sought in her application in a case filed 24^th September 2015 which was heard and judgment reserved on 11^th November 2015 to adduce further evidence as set out in the affidavit filed with this Application.  There is an affidavit by the Wife in support of that Application. 

3. There is before the Court today a Response to An application in a Case which was filed electronically at 11 minutes past 9 this morning.  It is supported by an affidavit of the Husband to which he deposed in (country omitted) yesterday. Order 2 in the Response to an Application in a Case is that leave be granted to each of the parties to re-open their respective cases and adduce fresh evidence as set out in the affidavits filed in respect of this Application.  That has happened this morning.  I have heard submissions from Mr Givney of Counsel for the Applicant wife and Mr Richardson of Senior Counsel for the Respondent husband. 

4. What has transpired this morning is that the Applicant sought to amend her Application in a Case to add a further order to become order sought number 5, which is an order intended to take place immediately to bring about an injunction to abide until the decision in the matter before me can be handed down.  And that order is, as it is sought:

   Pending…