HOLMES & HOLMES
Case
•
[2015] FCCA 1404
•13 May 2015
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
HOLMES & HOLMES [2015] FCCA 1404
[2015] FCCA 1404
13 May 2015
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Holmes & Holmes*, Judge Scarlett of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was required to determine an application concerning property settlement. The dispute involved a husband and wife who were seeking to finalise aspects of their property division.
The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate distribution of funds held in a controlled money account, specifically the release of $100,000.00 to each party as a partial property settlement. The court also considered the costs associated with this application.
Judge Scarlett ordered that within seven days of the court's orders, both the husband and wife were to take all necessary steps to facilitate the release of $100,000.00 from the controlled money account. This sum was to be paid to Manning Lawyers Pty Ltd for the wife and David Landa Stewart Lawyers for the husband. The court further ordered that each party was to bear their own costs of the application.
The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate distribution of funds held in a controlled money account, specifically the release of $100,000.00 to each party as a partial property settlement. The court also considered the costs associated with this application.
Judge Scarlett ordered that within seven days of the court's orders, both the husband and wife were to take all necessary steps to facilitate the release of $100,000.00 from the controlled money account. This sum was to be paid to Manning Lawyers Pty Ltd for the wife and David Landa Stewart Lawyers for the husband. The court further ordered that each party was to bear their own costs of the application.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Remedies
-
Injunction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
HOLMES & HOLMES [2015] FCCA 1404
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
2