Goey and Goey - [2019] FamCA 570

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GOEY & GOEY

[2019] FamCA 570

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim orders – Where the parties seek competing orders to deal with the balance of an account in the interim – Where the matter is listed for trial – Where it is appropriate to make an order for interim distribution of property

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 72(1), 74(1), 75(2), 75(2)(b), 75(2)(o), 79

Brown & Brown (2007) FLC 93-316
Drysdale & Drysdale [2011] FamCAFC 85
Edgar & Strofield [2016] FamCAFC 93
Hall & Hall (2016) 257 CLR 490
Maroney & Maroney [2009] FamCAFC 45
Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692
Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Strahan & Strahan (Interim Property Orders) (2011) FLC 93-466

APPLICANT:

Ms Goey

RESPONDENT:

Mr Goey

FILE NUMBER:

ADC

652

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

14 August 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Darwin

PLACE HEARD:

Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF:

Berman J

HEARING DATE:

23 July 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr McGinn

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Clelands Lawyers Adelaide Pty Ltd

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Wacyk

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Terese Wacyk Legal Pty Ltd

NOTING THAT the sum of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000) is to remain in the joint Westpac account of the parties in anticipation of the single expert costs and disbursements.

Orders

That save as to TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000) and the further consent of the parties, the order of injunction made 25 September 2018 in respect of the monies held in the Westpac joint account no. …74 be discharged.
That the parties do all things necessary to cause the following disbursements to be made from the Westpac joint account:-
(a)To the wife by way of lump sum spousal maintenance the sum of TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($27,300);
(b)To the husband by way of sum necessary to pay outstanding taxation the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($20,000);
(c)To the wife via her solicitors trust account the sum of SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($70,000);
(d)To the husband via his solicitors trust account the sum of FORTY ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY THREE DOLLARS ($41,293).
That the parties do all things necessary and sign all such documents as may be required to jointly instruct a single expert to prepare a report as to the assertion by the wife that in 75 transactions and by reason of other withdrawals the husband has accessed, disbursed, or transferred the total sum of $1,470,000.

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 Goey & Goey 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…

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 Goey and Goey

Details

AGLC: Goey and Goey [2019] FamCA 570
Case: [2019] FamCA 570
Decision Date: 14 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Goey and Goey*, Berman J considered an application concerning the discharge of an injunction and the disbursement of funds from a joint bank account. The dispute involved the wife's assertion that the husband had improperly accessed, disbursed, or transferred a significant sum of money, totalling $1,470,000, through various transactions and withdrawals.

The court was required to determine the extent to which an existing injunction should be discharged, and how funds held in a specific joint account should be disbursed. A further issue was the need to obtain expert evidence regarding the wife's allegations of the husband's financial dealings.

Berman J ordered the discharge of the injunction, save for $10,000 and the further consent of the parties. The court directed specific disbursements from the joint account, including lump sum spousal maintenance for the wife, payment of outstanding taxation for the husband, and further sums to be paid to each party via their respective solicitors' trust accounts. Additionally, the parties were ordered to jointly instruct a single expert to prepare a report addressing the wife's claim concerning the husband's alleged access, disbursement, or transfer of $1,470,000.

Orders

Orders of the court

That save as to TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000) and the further consent of the parties, the order of injunction made 25 September 2018 in respect of the monies held in the Westpac joint account no. …74 be discharged.

That the parties do all things necessary to cause the following disbursements to be made from the Westpac joint account:-

(a) To the wife by way of lump sum spousal maintenance the sum of TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($27,300);

(b) To the husband by way of sum necessary to pay outstanding taxation the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($20,000);

(d) To the husband via his solicitors trust account the sum of FORTY ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY THREE DOLLARS ($41,293).

That the parties do all things necessary and sign all such documents as may be required to jointly instruct a single expert to prepare a report as to the assertion by the wife that in 75 transactions and by reason of other withdrawals the husband has accessed, disbursed, or transferred the total sum of $1,470,000.

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.