Guthrie and Rushton (Supplementary)

[2009] FamCA 1145

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GUTHRIE & RUSHTON (SUPPLEMENTARY) [2009] FamCA 1145

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Slip Rule Amendment

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Guthrie

RESPONDENT: Ms Rushton

FILE NUMBER: MLC 12473 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 30 November 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Newcastle

PLACE HEARD: Chambers

JUDGMENT OF: Murphy J

HEARING DATE: 30 November 2009

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Taussig Cherrie & Associates

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Kenna Teasdale Lawyers

Orders

UPON NOTING THAT Orders were made and Reasons for Judgment delivered on 27 November 2009

IT IS HEREBY DIRECTED THAT

1. For Reasons published contemporaneously herewith, paragraph 44 of the Reasons for Judgment delivered on 27 November 2009 be corrected in accordance with the Reasons delivered herewith.

2. For the purposes of any Appeal from the Orders made on 27 November 2009, Supplementary Reasons for Judgment published herewith be read together with the Reasons delivered on 27 November 2009.

3. The Reasons for Judgment, corrected in accordance with paragraph 1 hereof, be published to each of the parties, and otherwise, in their corrected form.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 12473 of 2007

Mr Guthrie

Applicant Husband

And

Ms Rushton

Respondent Wife

SUPPLEMENTARY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On Friday 27 November 2009, I made Orders and delivered Reasons for Judgment in this matter. Those Reasons were delivered in Melbourne having been transmitted electronically from Brisbane that morning.

2. The Reasons, as delivered, contained an uncorrected version of paragraph 44. I propose to correct the errors in that paragraph.

3. First, the total appearing in that paragraph is an arithmetical error of $4,008,991. The correct total is $3,981,999.

4. Otherwise, the errors are of expression, which may render the paragraph confusing.

5. Paragraph 44 in its correct form (changes indicated) is as follows:

   First, that balance sheet needs to be amended because it includes in the totals column the “amount” of the husband’s pension interest as at the date of separation and if that amount is included in the total of superannuation interests, which is it would be shown as $1,941,416.  When the amount of the pension interest at separation is removed (as it must be if it is not to be counted twice), the correct total of all superannuation interests is $1,393,485.  The total of the net assets, accumulation superannuation interests and the pension is, then, $4,008,991 $3,981,999.

1. To avoid doubt, it is preferable to also include at footnote 6 on page 9 of the Reasons, the additional words “from the totals column”. The footnote in its corrected form reads:

   ^6.  This total is altered from the original by removal of the separation amount of $547,930 from the totals column.

2. The erroneous figure of $4,008,991 has not been carried through into any other calculations performed in the Reasons. Calculations appearing subsequent to paragraph 44 of the Reasons, remain unaltered.

3. The Orders are as made.

4. I will direct that, in the event of any Appeal, the Supplementary Reasons for Judgment should be read with the Reasons for Judgment.

5. I will further direct that these Supplementary Reasons be published to the parties and otherwise, in their corrected form.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Murphy.

Associate: 

Date:  30 November 2009