Goldwin v Morson - [2022] NSWSC 410

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Goldwin v Morson [2022] NSWSC 410
Hearing dates: 7 April 2022
Date of orders: 7 April 2022
Decision date: 07 April 2022
Jurisdiction: Equity - Duty List
Before: Kunc J
Decision:
Proceedings dismissed with costs

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Summary disposal – Dismissal of proceedings – Abuse of process – Application to extend caveat over former matrimonial home when proceedings on foot in Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Division 2

Cases Cited:
Song v Shi [2011] NSWSC 1207

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties:
Nella Goldwin (Plaintiff)
Peter Francis Morson (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:

E. Rusiti (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Parker Law (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2022/70562
Publication restriction: No

EX TEMPORE Judgment (REVISED)

Summary

The plaintiff (Ms Goldwin) and the defendant (Mr Morson) are currently locked in a matrimonial dispute. That dispute is being litigated in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Division 2 (the Family Court).
By summons filed in Court on 11 March 2022, Ms Goldwin seeks interlocutory relief including an order that the operation of a caveat over the former matrimonial home at XX XXXX Street, Paddington (the Property) be extended until further order, and for final relief declaring that she has an equitable interest in the Property. Mr Morson is the sole registered proprietor of the Property, but Ms Goldwin is currently residing there.
By notice of motion filed on 17 March 2022, the defendant (Mr Morson) seeks an order pursuant to UCPR Part 13 rule 13.4 that these proceedings be summarily dismissed as an abuse of process.
Ms Goldwin represented herself today. Mr Morson was represented by Ms E Rusiti of Counsel.
What is entirely clear amidst the conflicting evidence and submissions is that the proper place for the resolution of their disputes, and in particular the determination of the question of the extent to which Ms Goldwin may have an interest in the Property, is in the Family Court.
Last Monday, the Family Court, of its own motion, made orders including:

“…7. Pursuant to s 114 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), and until further order of the Court, the Applicant Husband is hereby restrained by injunction from refinancing any real property owned by him, or from using any interest in any real property to pay his debt to the Australian Taxation Office.
8.   A copy of these Orders may be provided to any Court dealing with the property of the parties.
AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.   The wife contends that the husband’s tax debt is his sole liability which should be allocated solely to him on a final basis, and that it should not be paid from matrimonial assets held in his name.
B.   The husband contends that his tax debt should be paid now by accessing equity in real property held in his sole name.
C.   The injunction is made of the Court’s own motion to protect and preserve the property of the parties to the marriage, which property is the subject matter…

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 Goldwin v Morson

Details

AGLC: Goldwin v Morson [2022] NSWSC 410
Case: [2022] NSWSC 410
Decision Date: 07 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Goldwin and Morson were former spouses who had engaged in a protracted legal battle over the sale of their former matrimonial home. The case reached the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Division 2, which had jurisdiction over the matter. During the proceedings, Goldwin lodged a caveat over the property, which Morson sought to have removed. Morson subsequently applied to extend the caveat, which Goldwin opposed on the grounds of abuse of process. The court was required to determine whether the extension of the caveat constituted an abuse of process and whether the proceedings should be dismissed.

The court found that the extension of the caveat was not an abuse of process. The court held that the caveat was a legitimate means of protecting Goldwin's interests in the property and that it did not amount to an abuse of the legal process. The court also found that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the dismissal of the proceedings. The court noted that the fact that proceedings were already on foot in another court did not, in and of itself, amount to an abuse of process.

In light of the above, the court dismissed Goldwin's application to have the proceedings dismissed. The court held that there were no grounds to stay the proceedings or to grant the relief sought by Goldwin. The court further held that the extension of the caveat was a legitimate means of protecting Goldwin's interests and that it did not constitute an abuse of process. The court noted that the matter was already before another court and that it was not appropriate for the court to intervene in the proceedings. The court declined to make any orders in relation to the caveat.

The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of protecting parties' interests in property disputes. The court found that the extension of the caveat was a legitimate means of protecting Goldwin's interests and that it did not amount to an abuse of process. The court also held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the dismissal of the proceedings. The decision serves as a reminder that courts will not intervene in proceedings on foot in another court unless there are exceptional circumstances that warrant such intervention.

Orders