HUDSON & ACLAND

[2015] FamCA 1232

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HUDSON & ACLAND [2015] FamCA 1232

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Partial settlement – Costs reserved

APPLICANT: Mr Hudson

RESPONDENT: Mr Acland

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2943 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 9 December 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Rees J

HEARING DATE: 9 December 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Kearney SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: York Law
Family Law Specialists

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Richardson SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Pearson Emerson Meyer

Family Lawyers

Orders

IT IS ORDERED

1. That the respondent Mr Acland do all acts and things to pay to the applicant Mr Hudson the sum of $550,000 by way of partial property settlement.

2. That the applicant and the respondent cause Acland and Hudson Pty Limited to transfer to the applicant the ownership of the motor vehicle registration number … and the Utility motor vehicle registration number ...

3. That the costs of this application of both parties be reserved.

4. That leave be granted to both parties to photocopy documents produced by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and B Town Shire Council with the exception of documents produced by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia relating to the accounts of Ms C Hudson.

5. That leave be granted to inspect the documents produced by Westpac Bank and the National Australia Bank and leave to the legal representatives to photocopy those documents.

6. That leave be granted to both parties to inspect the documents produced by Ms D Hudson.

7. That all outstanding subpoenas be stood over to 13 January 2016 at 9.30am.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2943 of 2013

Mr Hudson

Applicant

And

Mr Acland

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Before the Court is an application by Mr Hudson, the applicant (“the applicant”), in relation to property settlement proceedings against the respondent, Mr Acland (“the respondent”). The applicant seeks orders for partial property settlement in his favour in the sum of $550,000.

2. There is a real dispute between these parties about the quantum of the assets available for distribution. The principal asset of the parties is a company in which they each hold shares, Acland and Hudson Pty Limited, trading as Company E. There is no evidence before the Court about the value of Acland and Hudson Proprietary Limited but the evidence of the respondent is that in 2011 the company’s profit was $4,739,000, in 2012 $2,013,00, in 2013 $1,868,000, in 2014 $3,668,000 and in 2015, $4,903,000.

3. The company’s current balance sheet, which I accept is but a management tool, indicates that the company has cash at bank in the sum of approximately $13 million. It is therefore clear that the value of the company will be significant.

4. In addition to the company, the parties have substantial real estate assets. Notably, they have jointly-owned real estate which the respondent concedes has a value of $4.4 million.

5. There is no dispute about the respondent’s ability to pay the amount of $550,000 in circumstances where the respondent has cash in his own bank accounts of $2.1 million.

6. The respondent argues that at a final hearing the applicant will receive an entitlement to property settlement which will be the equivalent of 10 per cent of the net assets of the relationship. 

7. In those circumstances, the payment to the respondent of $550,000, which is the amount which he seeks, is equivalent to approximately 10 per cent of only the three parcels of real estate which are jointly owned.

8. I can be comfortably satisfied that the respondent is entitled on a final hearing to the amount which he seeks by way of interim property settlement. The principles which govern the application are established. I accept that it is necessary for the court to find that it seems likely that the applicant will receive by way of property settlement a sum sufficient to cover the advance and that in itself would be sufficient for the order to be made. 

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Rees delivered on 9 December 2015.

Associate

Date:  25 May 2016