Jacobs and Jacobs and Ors (No 2)

Case

[2015] FamCA 880

16 October 2015


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Jacobs and Jacobs and Ors (No 2) [2015] FamCA 880 [2015] FamCA 880 16 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Jacobs and Jacobs and Ors (No 2)*, Hogan J of the Family Court of Australia was required to determine the appropriate orders to be made in proceedings involving the applicant and the first, second, and third respondents, along with several other entities. The dispute concerned the execution of contracts and the management of proceeds from the sale of certain assets.

The court was asked to consider whether to join specific entities, namely E Pty Ltd, P Pty Ltd, Jacobs SA Pty Ltd, N Pty Ltd, and O Pty Ltd, as parties to the proceedings. Further, the court was required to determine the terms of contracts to be executed by the respondents and the joined entities, the manner in which the proceeds of sale from these contracts should be handled, and the extent to which the respondents and entities should be restrained from terminating or assigning franchise or licence agreements. The court also needed to consider provisions for default in complying with any orders made and the allocation of costs.

Hogan J ordered that the specified entities be joined as parties to the proceedings. The court directed the first, second, and third respondents to ensure the execution of contracts by these entities, with specific amendments, and to return the signed originals. The respondents and entities were ordered to do all necessary acts to effect these contracts and to deposit the proceeds of sale into the trust account of Barry.Nilsson Lawyers, to be held on trust for each entity. A specific sum was to be paid from these proceeds into the trust account of Bennett & Philp Lawyers. The court also imposed a restraint on the respondents and entities from terminating or assigning franchise or licence agreements. Pursuant to section 106A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), the Registrar or Deputy Registrar was appointed to execute documents in the name of any defaulting party, with the defaulting party ordered to pay the non-defaulting party's costs on an indemnity basis. Liberty to apply was granted to all parties. The applicant's costs of the application were reserved.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure

  • Family Law

  • Equity & Trusts

Legal Concepts

  • Injunction

  • Costs

  • Remedies

  • Jurisdiction

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Stay of Proceedings

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

1