Hakim & Salim

Case [2021] FamCAFC 128

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hakim & Salim [2021] FamCAFC 128  

Appeal from: Salim & Hakim (No. 2) [2021] FamCA 495
Appeal number(s): EAA 77 of 2021
File number(s): PAC 5392 of 2020
Judgment of: AINSLIE-WALLACE J
Date of judgment: 21 July 2021
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Application for expedition – Where the husband seeks expedition of his appeal against interim property orders giving the wife sole occupancy of the former matrimonial home – Whether there is a relevant circumstance which would cause the case to be given priority over other cases to their possible detriment – Where there are relevant circumstances in which to afford the appeal priority – Application granted
Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 94(2D)(j)

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 12.10A

Division: Appeal Division
Number of paragraphs: 18
Date of hearing: 21 July 2021
Place: Sydney
Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Wahhab
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr Givney
Solicitor for the Respondents: Ms Harirri

ORDERS

EAA 77 of 2021
PAC 5392 of 2020

APPEAL DIVISION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

MR HAKIM

Applicant

AND:

AND:

MS SALIM

First Respondent

MS NOOR

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

AINSLIE-WALLACE J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 JULY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   Appeal EAA 77 of 2021 be expedited.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

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 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Hakim & Salim has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

AINSLIE-WALLACE J

  1. Mr Hakim (“the husband”) seeks expedition of his appeal from interim property orders made by a judge of the Family Court on 12 July 2021. 

  2. The interim orders provide that Ms Salim (“the wife”) have the sole use and occupation of the parties’ former marital home and to give effect to that order, a lease of that property entered into by the husband with the second respondent (Ms Noor) be set aside. The husband was further ordered to pay the wife the sum of $100,000.  These are the orders that the husband seeks leave to appeal and if leave be granted that he appeals those orders.

  3. The second respondent Ms Noor by her solicitor this morning indicated that she will be filing a submitting notice in the appeal by the end of this day and did not want to be heard on the application for expedition.

  4. The wife supports the appeal being expedited.  In all of the circumstances I am of the view that this matter should be expedited for the following reasons.

    BACKGROUND

  5. So as to give context to this application it is…

Continue reading Hakim & Salim

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hakim & Salim [2021] FamCAFC 128
Case
[2021] FamCAFC 128
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hakim & Salim involved the husband appealing the interim property orders granted to the wife, which provided her with sole occupancy of their former matrimonial home. The husband had leased the home to a tenant despite being aware of the wife's application for sole occupancy. The wife supported the appeal being expedited. The court was required to determine whether there were relevant circumstances that warranted the appeal being given priority over other cases.

In granting the application for expedition, the court noted that there were relevant circumstances present. The court observed that the husband had leased the accommodation originally occupied by the wife's parents, paying a bond and committing to weekly rental payments. The wife and children had been living with the wife's parents in unsuitable accommodation, and the wife had received a notice to vacate that property due to the sale of the property. The court found that the circumstances warranted the appeal being given priority to prevent possible detriment to the wife and children.

The court ordered that the appeal be expedited, allowing it to be heard ahead of other cases. This decision was based on the relevant circumstances present in the case, which included the wife and children living in unsuitable accommodation and the potential for them to be without a home if the appeal was not expedited. The order was subject to review or variation under the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

EAA 77 of 2021

PAC 5392 of 2020

APPEAL DIVISION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MR HAKIM

Applicant

AND:

AND:

MS SALIM

First Respondent

MS NOOR

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

AINSLIE-WALLACE J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 JULY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Appeal EAA 77 of 2021 be expedited.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

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 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

Background

Background to the litigation

The wife supports the appeal being expedited. In all of the circumstances I am of the view that this matter should be expedited for the following reasons.BACKGROUND So as to give context to this application it is necessary to refer to some brief background facts. The parties were married in 2004. They have three children who were born in 2004, 2008 and 2013 and the parties and the children lived in the marital home from 2004 except for a period of two years when they lived overseas. The date of their actual separation is a matter of contention but there is no dispute that in February 2020 the wife and children left the marital home and moved in with her parents in their rented unit which was said to have been in poor repair and unsuitable accommodation for the children and the wife. The wife it was said was sleeping on a mattress on the floor with one of the children. Later on, bigger and more appropriate accommodation was arranged for the wife, children and her parents although the wife maintained that it was not large enough for all of them. At the time of the hearing before the primary judge, the wife and her parents had received a notice to vacate that accommodation because the property had been sold and by her submissions this morning it appears that any opposition by her to being ordered to vacate the accommodation would ultimately become a matter for the Administrative Tribunal. On 12 October 2020 the wife applied for final property orders and in April 2021 she filed an application in a case seeking orders for exclusive occupancy of the home. On 3 May 2021 the husband entered into an agreement to lease the marital home between himself as landlord and the second respondent as tenant. It seems to be undisputed that the husband was aware of the wife’s application for sole occupancy at the time he arranged to rent the marital home. He said that his financial circumstances were such that he had to lease the home notwithstanding the wife’s then extant application for sole occupancy. Apparently the contents of the home were removed by him prior to the tenant taking possession. The second respondent’s evidence to the primary judge was that she became aware that the parties’ home was available to rent in late April 2021. The primary judge set aside the lease as between the husband and second respondent, ordered that the husband indemnify the second respondent in relation to her reasonable relocation expenses and other expenses referrable to the setting aside of the lease. The primary judge noted that the husband had leased the accommodation originally occupied by the wife’s parents paying a bond for the rental of that property and committing to paying the weekly rental. His Honour observed that the second respondent could live there temporarily should she want. His Honour further ordered that the wife have sole use and occupation of the property, that the husband pay all necessary outgoings on the property and return the contents to the house.

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.