Guild and Stasiuk (No 2) - [2019] FamCA 359

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GUILD & STASIUK (NO. 2)

[2019] FamCA 359

FAMILY LAW – BINDING FINANCIAL AGREEMENT – trial of proceeding – decision of Full Court in Frederick & Frederick handed down the day earlier – whether that decision altered the law – applicant wanting to adduce further evidence – whether to grant adjournment – whether Full Court decision actually altered the law.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 90K(1)(d), 117(2A)

Frederick & Frederick [2019] FamCAFC 87

APPLICANT:

Ms Guild

RESPONDENT:

Mr Stasiuk

WITNESS UNDER SUBPOENA:

Mr H

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

13949

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

30 May 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

The Honourable Justice Wilson

HEARING DATE:

30 May 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr G Dickson QC

SOLICITORS FOR THE APPLICANT:

Lander & Rogers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Dr R Ingleby

SOLICITORS FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Berger Kordos Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE WITNESS UNDER SUBPOENA:

Mr J Salamanca

consent Orders

Within seven days, each party deliver to the other a list of document/categories of documents sought to be disclosed, and the receiving party within 14 days thereafter provide such of the requested documents as are within their possession, power or control, or provide an explanation as to why such document cannot or should not be produced.
The parties jointly instruct single expert valuers to value any real estate or business interests, the value of which remains in dispute, in 28 days (the husband’s assertions as to real estate valuers being those contained in his financial statement).
Any further affidavit material to be filed and served –
(a)by the wife (including affidavits annexing the expert reports) by 16 September 2019; and
(b)by the husband by 30 September 2019.
The compliance date for the subpoena addressed to Mr H be extended to 10am on 10 October 2019.The trial of this proceeding is adjourned.

Orders

The trial date of 31 May 2019 is vacated.
The trial of this proceeding is adjourned to 10 and 11 October 2019 at 10am.

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 Guild & Stasiuk 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 13949 of 2018

Ms Guild

Applicant

And

Mr Stasiuk

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 22 March 2019 the Honourable Justice Cronin made orders fixing this case for trial on two days the first of which was to be today. The parties have complied with his Honour’s orders as to procedural steps and the case was…

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 Guild and Stasiuk (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Guild and Stasiuk (No 2) [2019] FamCA 359
Case: [2019] FamCA 359
Decision Date: 30 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by the respondents, Guild and Stasiuk, for an adjournment of the trial date previously set for 31 May 2019. The application was heard by Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the respondents had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the vacation of the existing trial date and the rescheduling of the proceedings. This required the Court to consider the principles governing adjournments, particularly in circumstances where a party seeks to delay a trial.

Justice Wilson granted the adjournment, vacating the trial date of 31 May 2019 and adjourning the trial to 10 and 11 October 2019. The specific reasons for the adjournment are not detailed in the provided text, but the outcome indicates that the Court was satisfied that exceptional circumstances justified the postponement of the hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

The trial date of 31 May 2019 is vacated.

The trial of this proceeding is adjourned to 10 and 11 October 2019 at 10am.

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.