Gironda & Connor - [2022] FedCFamC2F 936

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Gironda & Connor [2022] FedCFamC2F 936

File number: MLC 7888 of 2020

Judgment of: JUDGE O'SHANNESSY

Date of judgment: 15 July 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – property and financial matter – proceeded undefended – husband unemployed – respondent wife did not participate – second respondent company found to be wife’s alter ego and added to the proceedings – short relationship of the parties – just and equitable to make an order – nondisclosure – 7.5 per cent contribution assessment – disparity of assets and income – 10 per cent section 75(2) adjustment.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75, 79, 80, 117

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) rr 24.01, 24.02, 24.03, 24.04

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 1.04, 1.33, 3.01, 3.05, 6.01, 6.06

Cases cited:
An & Zhu (2006) FLC ¶93-257

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v ANU (2009) 239 CLR 175

Chang & Su (2002) FLC 93-117

Chang v Su [2002] HCA Trans 549

Hickey and Hickey and the Attorney-General [2003] FamCA 395; (2003) FLC 93-143

Keskin & Keskin and Anor [2019] FamCAFC 236; (2019) FLC 93-932

Kingston & Field (No.2) [2020] FamCAFC 235

Ramsay v Ramsay (1997) FLC 92-742

Singam & Moffrey (2015) FLC 93-641

Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146

Zane & Allan (2008) FLC 93-378

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 116

Date of last submissions: 6 April 2022

Date of hearing: 6 October 2021

Place: Melbourne

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms A Finemore

Solicitor for the Applicant: Leslie Family Law

Solicitor for the Respondents: No Appearance
ORDERS

MLC 7888 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR GIRONDA

Applicant

AND:

MS CONNOR

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE O'SHANNESSY

DATE OF ORDER:

15 JULY 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Within 60 days of the date of these Orders, the Wife, Ms Connor (‘the Wife’), do all acts and thing to cause and ensure payment to the Husband, Mr Gironda (‘the Husband’), as follows:
(a)$78,700 by way of final property settlement (‘the payment’); and
(b)$14,592 by way of costs (‘the costs order’).

2.In the event the Wife fails to comply with Order 1, then the Wife and the Second Respondent B Pty Ltd (‘the company’) do all acts and things to cause the property at C Street, Suburb D (‘the C Street, Suburb D unit’) be placed on the market for sale and the following conditions shall apply:
(a)the Wife and the company shall be at liberty to choose the identity of and appoint the selling agent and conveyancer, save that if not done within 30 days, then the Husband (or his solicitor) shall choose the selling agent and the conveyancer; and
(b)unless agreed and subject to the rights of the mortgagor, the sale price and conditions shall be determined by the selling agent; and
(c)the selling agent shall advise both the Wife, the company…

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 Gironda & Connor

Details

AGLC: Gironda & Connor [2022] FedCFamC2F 936
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 936
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Gironda & Connor, the husband, Mr Gironda, made an application for property settlement and spousal maintenance against the wife, Ms Connor. The wife did not participate in the proceedings, and the company, B Pty Ltd, was later added as a second respondent. The wife was the sole shareholder and director of the company. The court found that it was just and equitable to proceed undefended and to make a property settlement order. The court also made an order for costs against the wife due to her nondisclosure and failure to comply with court orders. The court ordered that the wife pay the husband a property settlement of $78,700 and costs of $14,592. In the event of nonpayment, the court ordered that the property at C Street, Suburb D be placed on the market for sale, with the proceeds applied to the payment of costs, mortgage, property settlement, and costs order. The court also severed any joint tenancy in any real or personal estate between the parties.

Orders