HAJAR & AMARI - [2019] FCCA 2402

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HAJAR & AMARI

[2019] FCCA 2402

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Proceedings transferred to the Family Court of Australia – order made.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.75, 79
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), s.39
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.8.02

Cases cited:

Morris & Rosetti [2017] FamCA 249

Re W: Publication Application (1997) 137 FLR 205

Applicant:

MS HAJAR

Respondent:

MR AMARI

File Number:

PAC 5202 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Newbrun

Hearing date:

21 August 2019

Date of Last Submission:

21 August 2019

Delivered at:

Parramatta

Delivered on:

28 August 2019

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Baran

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Mr Boutros

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Ms Tawbe

ORDERS

These property proceedings are forthwith transferred to the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta at 17 September 2019 at 9:30am.
Leave to the wife to make photocopies of all documents produced under subpoena upon the usual implied undertaking as to their use.
Extend the time for filing of an Amended Initiating Application to 1 November 2019.

Notation: The wife proposes to issue questions pursuant to rule 13.26 of the Family Law Rules.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 5202 of 2017

MS HAJAR

Applicant

And

MR AMARI

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The within Reasons for Judgment relate to this Court’s Order of 21 August 2019 reserving its decision as to whether these property proceedings be transferred to the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta. The wife had made application, through her counsel, that these property proceedings be so transferred.
Information was provided by the parties to the Court on 21 and 23 August 2019 such that it is clear that the property proceedings are unlikely to be completed within four days of final hearing, and in any event, are complex. The Court refers to the helpful Case Outline prepared by the wife’s counsel and dated 23 August 2019 and which appears in Appendix A to these reasons.
The wife contends, inter alia, that the husband operates 2 profitable businesses. She contends that these businesses were previously conducted through companies that the husband has either caused to be placed into voluntary liquidation or deregistered; she contends that such events have rendered previous Orders directing valuations of the businesses redundant (see the Orders of 20.12.17 and 24.5.18). She contends that the husband has caused monies to be transferred to third parties from these businesses with a view to deliberately reducing the asset pool. The wife contends that the two businesses continue to trade and thrive. She contends that the ownership of these businesses is unknown and it is apprehended that the owners are alter egos of inter alia the husband.
The wife contends that the Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to section 106B of the Family Law Act 1975, Commonwealth, may well…

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 HAJAR & AMARI

Details

AGLC: Hajar and Amari [2019] FCCA 2402
Case: [2019] FCCA 2402
Decision Date: 28 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In property proceedings before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the parties, Hajar and Amari, were involved in a dispute concerning their financial matters. The proceedings were ultimately transferred to the Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was the appropriate forum for the determination of the property dispute. The court was required to consider whether the Family Court of Australia was the more suitable jurisdiction for these proceedings.

Judge Newbrun ordered that the property proceedings be forthwith transferred to the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta, with a specified hearing date. The court also granted the wife leave to make photocopies of documents produced under subpoena, subject to the usual undertakings. Furthermore, the time for filing an Amended Initiating Application was extended to 1 November 2019, with a notation that the wife intended to issue questions pursuant to rule 13.26 of the Family Law Rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

These property proceedings are forthwith transferred to the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta at 17 September 2019 at 9:30am.

Leave to the wife to make photocopies of all documents produced under subpoena upon the usual implied undertaking as to their use.

Extend the time for filing of an Amended Initiating Application to 1 November 2019.

Notation: The wife proposes to issue questions pursuant to rule 13.26 of the Family Law Rules.

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.