Gull & Gull

[2009] FamCAFC 71

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GULL & GULL [2009] FamCAFC 71

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Appeal from trial Judge – Whether the trial Judge erred in the calculation of the parties net assets – Whether the trial Judge erred in determining the distribution of property – Whether the trial Judge erred by ordering that the parties investments in Indian bank accounts be transferred to Australia for distribution

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – APPLICATION TO ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE AT APPEAL – Where the wife submitted that further evidence should be allowed – Evidence to demonstrate that the husband had not disclosed assets at the trial – Evidence as to the wife’s medical condition – Evidence of the proceedings in Indian courts – Evidence of the cost of returning investment monies to Australia – Refused

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Dismissed no basis for appeal - Orders amending the trial Judge’s calculations of assets and distribution between the parties after concession made of an error

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – No order as to costs

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956

AMS v AIF (1999) FLC 92-852
De Winter v De Winter (1979) FLC 90-605
Fox v Percy [2003] 214 CLR 118
Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

APPELLANT: MRS GULL

RESPONDENT: MR GULL

FILE NUMBER: MLF 2723 of 2004

APPEAL NUMBER: SA 23 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 30 April 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Warnick, May & Boland JJ

HEARING DATE: 9 October 2008

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Australia

LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 19 March 2008

LOWER COURT MNC: [2008] FamCA 183

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: Appellant appeared in person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr A Combes

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Vernon DA Gama & Associates

Orders

1. The application to adduce further evidence be refused.

2. The appeal be dismissed subject to the following orders.

3. The sum in paragraph 1(a) of the order dated 19 March 2008 be varied to $173,710 and the sum referred to in paragraph 1(b) be varied to the negative value of -$5,639 so that the net assets of the parties are calculated at $736,889.

4. The sums referred to in paragraph 2 of the orders dated 19 March 2009 be varied to $478,977.85 for the wife and $257,911.15 for the husband.

5. No order as to costs of the appeal.

6. No order as to costs of and incidental to the application for a stay of the orders dated 19 March 2008.

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

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

Appeal Number: SA 23 of 2008
File Number: MLF 2723 of 2004

MRS GULL

Appellant

And

MR GULL

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction    

1. Final property orders were made by Mushin J on 19 March 2008.…