JAMES & JAMES

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JAMES & JAMES

[2015] FamCA 686

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Dispute between the parties regarding the proposed sale of a property – wife seeking sale of the property at auction – husband seeking that the property be sold through private sale to a client – history of mistrust between the parties – where the husband has failed to disclose in a timely manner the default under the mortgage secured over the property to be sold – question of whether the property should be sold subject to a lease and, if so, the terms of the lease – expert advice considered –orders made that the property be sold via public auction and that the lease be varied

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT:

Ms James

RESPONDENT:

Mr James

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

10243

2012

DATE DELIVERED:

20 August 2015

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Johns J

HEARING DATE:

5 August 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Tulloch

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Kennedy Guy

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Smallwood

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Schetzer Constantinou

Orders

That on or before 4.00 pm on 4 September 2015 the husband do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to vary the lease between B Pty Ltd and C Pty Ltd with respect to the property situate at and known as D Street, Suburb F (“D Street”) to provide that Item 18 of the Schedule to the Lease Of Real Estate, annexed at PWJ-2 to the husband’s affidavit filed 28 July 2015, be varied to read as follows:-
“One (1) additional term of three (3) years.”
That forthwith the husband both personally and in his capacity as director of B Pty Ltd do all such acts and things and sign all such documents as may be required to sell D Street (“the sale”) and for the purposes of effecting the sale:-
(a)the sale be conducted by an agent as agreed between the parties, such agreement to be confirmed in writing within seven days, and in default of agreement in writing, the selling agent to be nominated by the President of the Real Estate Institute of Victoria, or his nominee (“the selling agent”);
(b)the method of sale be by way of public auction;
(c)D Street be sold subject to the existing lease as varied pursuant to Order 1 hereof;
(d)the reserve price be as agreed between the parties in writing no less than 14 days prior to the auction date, and in default of agreement to be determined by a valuer nominated by the President of the Real Estate Institute of Victoria, or his nominee.
That upon settlement of the sale the proceeds of the sale be applied as follows:-
(a)first, to pay all costs, commissions and expenses of the sale;
(b)second, to discharge the following liabilities secure by way of mortgage to the National Australia Bank being loan numbers ending in:-
(i)     …;
(ii)    …;
(iii)   …;
(iv)   …;
(v)     …;
(vi)   …; and
(vii)     …;
(c)third, the balance then remaining to be placed into an interest bearing account in the joint names of the parties to be held upon trust for them by the wife’s solicitor until further order.
That each party have liberty to apply with respect to the terms and conditions of the sale.
That the wife’s amended application in a case filed 3 July 2015 and the husband’s response to application in a case filed 28 July 2015 be otherwise dismissed.
That each party’s costs of this day be reserved.
That pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) this matter reasonably required the attendance of counsel.
That all applications for final orders be adjourned for hearing before Justice Johns on 7 December 2015 at 10.00 am as a five-day matter and that the evidence in chief of all witnesses be given by affidavit.
That the matter be listed for mention before Justice Johns at 9.30 am on 13 November 2015.
That by 4.00 pm on 28 September 2015 the applicant file and serve upon all other parties:
(a)any amended application setting out with precision the orders to be sought;
(b)any further supplementary affidavits of evidence in chief of all witnesses including the applicant relied upon (noting that affidavits relied upon for previous hearings cannot be relied upon as evidence in chief); and
(c)an updated financial statement that complies with chapter 13 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
That the applicant pay all setting down and trial fees by 4.00 pm on 28 September 2015.
That by 4.00 pm on 19 October 2015 the respondent file and serve upon all other parties:
(a)any amended response setting out with precision what orders are being sought;
(b)any further supplementary affidavits of evidence in chief of all witnesses including the respondent relied upon (noting that affidavits relied upon for previous hearings cannot be relied upon as evidence in chief);
(c)an updated financial statement that complies with chapter 13 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
That no party file any further material other than as provided by these orders without leave of the Court.
That prior to commencement of the trial, the parties determine whether there are to be any rulings required arising out of objections to evidence and such objections be referred to in the parties’ outlines of case.
That all parties have leave to issue subpoenae for the production of documents by arrangement with the registrar docketed with the management of the file.
That all parties have liberty to approach the registrar responsible for the management of the court file to vary the obligations under these orders to ensure readiness for trial.
Should any party fail to comply with these orders or the ensuing amending directions of the docketed registrar,
(a)the Court may relist the case requiring the parties to justify why it should not be taken out of the list; and
(b)the party who has complied may immediately thereafter file an application in a case supported by an affidavit seeking for the matter to proceed on an undefended basis.
That the practitioners for the parties file and serve electronically to … by 4.00 pm on 2 December 2015 the following:
(a)a concise set of orders to be sought if different from those already filed;
(b)a list of the applications and affidavits to be read and, if not the whole affidavit, the relevant paragraphs relied upon;
(c)a list of assets and liabilities;
(d)a list of objections to evidence upon which rulings are required; and
(e)a bullet-point summary of argument in relation to the issues in dispute.
That each party provide to the court at the commencement of the hearing, a statement setting out the costs incurred to that date and from what source those funds have been paid and what costs are expected to be incurred until the completion of the hearing.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym James & James 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 10243 of 2012

Ms James

Applicant

And

Mr James

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This matter comes before me in a Judicial Duty List.
It is agreed between the parties that the commercial property at D Street, Suburb F (“D Street”), which is owned by an entity controlled by them and is where the husband conducts his accounting business, is to be sold. The dispute between the parties relates to the terms of the proposed sale and in particular:-
·The method of sale;
·Whether the property should be sold subject to a lease and if so, the terms of that lease; and
·How the proceeds of the sale are to be applied.

The Parties

The wife is the applicant in the proceedings. She is aged 60 years and is engaged in part-time employment as an administrative assistant.
The husband is the respondent to the current application. He is aged 63 years and is self-employed.
The parties married in 1973 and separated in 2011. Their relationship spans a period of approximately 28 years. There are two adult children of the parties who live independently.
The wife commenced proceedings in November 2012 seeking orders for final property settlement. The husband filed his response to that application in February 2013, also seeking orders for final property settlement.
The parties’ competing property applications have been docketed to me and are awaiting a final hearing. The matter was listed for final hearing before me in November 2014 and May 2015 but could not proceed on those dates due to issues with respect to the value of the parties’ interests in their self-managed superannuation fund. Counsel for the parties confirmed during their submissions that the matter is now ready to proceed to trial. Accordingly, I will make orders that the hearing of the parties’ competing property applications be listed before me in December 2015.

The Wife’s Application

The wife filed an Amended Application in a Case on 3 July 2015 in which she sought orders for the sale of D Street. She sought specific orders with respect to the reserve price and method of sale of that property. Further, the wife sought orders as to the application of the proceeds of sale.
The wife also sought orders with respect to the management of the parties’ self-managed superannuation fund. Ultimately, the parties were able to agree to action to be taken regarding the management of the superannuation fund and I was not required to determine that part of the wife’s application.
At the commencement of the hearing counsel for the wife tendered a minute of orders sought (Exhibit A1). The orders sought by the wife at the hearing which required determination were as follows:-
1.That on or before 4pm on 12 August 2015 the husband to do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to further vary the lease between [B Pty Ltd] and [C Pty Ltd] in relation to [D Street, Suburb F] (“the real property”) such that Item 18 of the Schedule to the “Lease of Real Estate” being annexure “PWJ-2” to the husband’s affidavit filed 28 July 2015 be further varied to read:-
“One (1) additional term of three (3) years”.
2.The husband to forthwith do all such acts and things and sign all such documents as may be required to sell the real property (“the sale”) and for the purposes of effecting the said sale:-
2.1the sale to be conducted by an agent to be agreed between the parties and in default of agreement in writing on or before 4pm on 12 August 2015, to be nominated by [Mr G] of [H Real Estate] (“the agent”);
2.2the method of sale be by way of public auction;
2.3the real property be sold subject to the existing lease as varied pursuant to paragraph 1 of these orders;
2.4further terms and conditions of the sale to be as agreed between the parties upon the advice of the agent; and
2.5the sale price/reserve price to be as agreed between the parties upon the advice of the agent and in default of agreement to be determined by a valuer to be nominated by the President of the REIV.
3.Upon the settlement of the sale the proceeds be applied as follows:-
3.1first, to pay all costs, commissions and expenses of the sale;
3.2secondly, to discharge the following liabilities secured by way of mortgage to the NAB, loan numbers ending in
3.2.1    4913;
3.2.2    0855;
3.2.3    8409;
3.2.4    1483;
3.2.5    9378;
3.2.6    1160; and
3.2.7    5598;
…
4.Each party have liberty to apply at short notice to Justice Johns on the issue of the sale.
5.The parties each forthwith do all such acts and things as agreed by them as described in the letter from Mr I dated 4 August 2015 regarding the “James Superannuation Funds” a copy of which is annexed to these orders and marked “A”.
6.Each party’s costs of this day be reserved.
7.Certify for counsel.
The wife relied upon the following material in support of that application:-
·Amended Application in a Case filed 3 July 2015;
·Affidavit of the wife filed 3 July 2015;
·Affidavit of the wife filed 3 August 2015; and
·Affidavit of Mr G (Mr G) filed 3 July 2015.
The orders sought by the husband at the hearing, in summary, were as follows:-
·That the wife’s Amended Application in a Case filed 3 July 2015 be dismissed.
·That the husband do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to further vary the lease between B Pty Ltd and C Pty Ltd in relation to D Street such that the term of the lease be varied to 10 years.
·That D Street be sold on an unconditional contract to D Street Investments Pty Ltd at a purchase price of $1,680,000 with settlement to be effected on or before 15 August 2015.
·That the proceeds of the sale be applied to meet various debts, including the husband’s credit card liabilities.
During the hearing the husband agreed that the sale proceeds could be applied in accordance with paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of Exhibit A1. Accordingly I will make orders in those terms. Otherwise it was agreed between the parties that the determination as to how the balance of the proceeds of sale be applied should await the final hearing.
The husband relied upon the following material:-
·Response to an Amended Application in a Case filed 28 July 2015;
·Affidavit of the husband filed 28 July 2015; and
·Affidavit of Mr K filed 4 August 2015.
The matter was conducted on the papers. Each party relied upon the material referred to above and their counsel’s oral submissions. Given the nature of the hearing, contentious facts cannot be determined without evidence being properly tested. Accordingly, in determining the matter, I have relied upon those facts which are agreed or not in issue.

Background

The parties have, during the course of their relationship, accumulated interests in a number of real properties, both in their own names and via their corporate entities. The parties (or their entities) have interests in properties in Suburb F, L Town, Melbourne, M Town and N Town. There are substantial borrowings from the National Australia Bank secured against the titles to those properties.
On 19 May 2015 I made orders that provided that until further order, the husband pay or cause to be paid from his income or the income of entities controlled by him all instalments of mortgage payments as and when they fall due for mortgages secured against the parties’ properties, which included the property at D Street.
The wife deposes in her affidavit filed 3 July 2015 that at the time those orders were made, she was unaware that the parties’ entities were in default in respect of the loans from the National Australia Bank secured against the titles to the properties held by them or their entities.
At paragraph 6 of that affidavit, the wife deposes that the National Australia Bank wrote to the husband by letter dated 20 April 2015 notifying him that entities controlled by him were in default of their loan liabilities. That letter (which is annexure BJ-1 of the wife’s affidavit) stated in part:-
We refer to your meeting with [the bank officer] on 14 April 2015. You advised that the court is expected to make a decision in relation to the family law proceedings in the week commencing 18 May 2015. You expect that a decision will be made for assets to be sold which include properties mortgaged to the NAB. The sale proceeds will then pay out liabilities which include NAB debt.
…
The NAB has reviewed its position and has made an assessment that there is uncertainty as to whether the properties will actually be sold and whether the sale of the properties will occur in a timely manner. Due to this uncertainty, the NAB will not be able to defer enforcement action at this time and you may receive default notices in the coming weeks. The situation however may be reassessed following the outcome of family law proceedings.
At paragraph 7 of her affidavit, the wife deposes that she received a copy of the letter from the NAB from the husband’s solicitors almost two months later, by letter dated 15 June 2015.
The bank served a copy of its default notice upon the wife, who is noted on title as a caveator of the properties, under cover of letter dated 29 May 2015. She deposes at paragraph 8 of her affidavit that she was unaware of the default under the mortgages until that demand was received by her. The husband does not take issue with that chronology of events.
By letter dated 15 June 2015 the husband sought the wife’s consent to the sale of D Street. At that time, the husband proposed that the property be sold for $1,680,000 and that the proceeds be applied to the discharge of various liabilities.
The sale price proposed by the husband in that letter and in the orders sought by him today is the value of D Street as assessed by O Valuers in their valuation prepared for the parties in August 2014.
The wife’s position is that that valuation is out of date and should not be relied upon as being determinative of the value of the property some 12 months later, particularly having regard to the well-publicised growth in the property market in Melbourne since the date of the valuation.
It is common ground between the parties that the D Street property be sold. The issue between them is the manner in which such sale should be conducted and how the proceeds of sale then applied.
The husband now seeks that the property be sold to an entity known as D Street Investments Pty Ltd, a company owned and controlled by Mr P. At paragraph 12 of his affidavit filed 28 July 2015 the husband deposes that Mr P has agreed to purchase D Street for the sum of $1,680,000 upon an unconditional contract with settlement to be effected on or before 15 August 2015.
At paragraph 13 of that affidavit the husband deposes that Mr P is a client of his business. Further, he deposes that Mr P has recently sold a business and has liquid funds available to complete the proposed purchase. In addition, the husband deposes that he is prepared to engage O Valuers to prepare an updated valuation of D Street and in the event that the valuation exceeds the proposed purchase price, the husband will “add-back” to the asset pool the difference between the valuation and the contract price.
It was submitted on behalf of the husband that a sale to Mr P upon those terms was preferable as the parties would incur no expenses in the marketing of the property, there would be no agent’s commission and settlement could be effected within a matter of weeks which would represent a significant saving to the parties in terms of interest payable on loans.
The husband seeks orders for the sale of the property subject to a lease. It is common ground between the parties that the husband has conducted his accounting business from D Street for a period of approximately 20 years. The husband seeks to continue to operate his business from those premises. Counsel for the husband submitted that the husband hoped to conduct his accounting practice for a further 10 years.
The current lease of premises is dated 1 May 2014 and is for a period of three years. That lease is between B Pty Ltd and C Pty Ltd, both entities of which the husband is sole director.
On 1 July 2015 the husband executed a Deed of Extension and Variation of Lease in respect of D Street (Exhibit PW-2 of the husband’s affidavit). That document provides for a variation of the term of the lease to provide as follows:-
Five (5) additional terms of (3) years plus two (2) additional terms of five (5) years.
The effect of the variation is to extend the term of the lease for a period of up to 25 years.
That document was executed by the husband at a time when the parties were then negotiating the terms upon which D Street should be sold. This is evident from the correspondence annexed to the wife’s affidavit wherein it is proposed by the husband (through his then-lawyers) that the parties sell D Street. As noted earlier, that correspondence is dated 15 June 2015.

In her supplementary affidavit filed 3 August 2015 the wife deposes at paragraph 8 that :-
… [A]t no time did the husband request my consent to enter or extend the lease agreement on [D Street]. Nor did he involve me in any way with this decision.
The wife opposes the method of sale proposed by the husband. Simply put, the wife does not trust the husband. In support of that position she relies upon:-
·the failure of the husband to inform her that the mortgage was in arrears and that the NAB was seeking to enforce its rights under the mortgage when the matter was before the Court on 19 May 2015;
·the failure of the husband to inform the Court of the position of the bank during the hearing on 19 May 2015 when orders were made requiring the husband to pay the instalments due under the loan; and
·the manner in which the husband, through entities controlled by him, entered into a Variation of Lease of D Street without notice to the wife and at a time when he was negotiating with the wife regarding arrangements for the sale of that property.
As a result of the distrust between the parties the wife submits that the sale of D Street should be open and transparent and that a public auction will ensure such transparency.
Having regard to the history of the matter, I am satisfied that there is much force in the submissions made on behalf of the wife. I am satisfied that the husband’s conduct in failing to inform the wife or the Court of the correspondence received by him from the bank regarding arrears under the loan and his execution of a long term extension of the lease on D Street without prior notice to the wife, in circumstances where the parties were at the time negotiating in relation to the potential sale of that property, has likely heightened the wife’s distrust of him.
As to the method of sale, the wife relies upon the affidavit of Andrew G filed 3 July 2015. Mr G is a national executive director of the firm H Real Estate, an independent property advisory firm. Mr G deposes that he has over 25 years property experience within the Melbourne market and that he has been a director of that firm since 1997. Mr G has prepared a letter of advice in relation to the proposed sale of D Street. Mr G has provided advice both with respect to the method of sale and also as to the impact of selling the property subject to a lease.
As to the question of the impact of a lease upon the sale Mr G stated as follows:-
We have been advised that the property is currently occupied by interests associated with the registered proprietor, and accordingly the property could therefore potentially be offered for sale with vacant possession. Noting current market sentiment, it is our opinion that the property’s value would be maximised by its sale with vacant possession as it is the owner-occupier market for this property type that is currently stronger, as opposed to the investor market that considers value based purely on a level of rental and lease covenant.
Notwithstanding that advice, the wife’s position is that the husband should be permitted to enter a variation of lease to provide him with a further three-year term.
In my view, that is a sensible position to adopt in circumstances where the husband has operated his accounting practice from the property for a period of 20 years. The wife’s proposal ensures that the husband will have certainty with respect to his tenure in those premises for a period of up to almost five years, being the period remaining under the current term and a further term of three years; it will allow the husband to relocate his accounting practice in an orderly fashion. Further, having regard to the evidence of Mr G, I am satisfied that a lease of more limited duration may assist the sale of the property by encouraging greater interest in the property by developers.
Mr G also provided unambiguous advice as to the preferred method of sale. At page 2 of his letter dated 3 July 2015 annexed to his affidavit, Mr G noted as follows:-
In relation to realisation matters, it is our opinion that the property would be most suited to an auction campaign with a timeframe of approximately six weeks inclusive of period for legal documentation and approval of marketing material, a marketing campaign and inspection period, culminating in an auction and hopefully sale at that time... We believe the auction process is the most appropriate method of selling this property because it provides transparency to buyers in terms of who and how many others are in direct competition, it gives a definite timeframe as to the realisation process and it is a well-known sale process (especially in the residential property segment) and accordingly, the target market of local owner occupiers and possibly developers will be comfortable with this process.
Mr G’s evidence was not challenged. I am satisfied, having regard to the evidence of Mr G that the appropriate method of sale of D Street is by public auction. That method will not preclude Mr P from bidding for the property if he maintains his interest in acquiring it. Further, that method will ensure that the sale process is transparent. In light of the history of the matter, and the evident distrust between the parties, it is my view that the sale of such a significant asset must be conducted in an open and transparent fashion.
Prior to the commencement of the hearing the parties reached agreement with respect to the application of some of the sale proceeds towards discharge of debt. Given that the matter will be listed for final hearing before me in December 2015, the question of the application of the balance of the proceeds of sale is a matter that can be considered at the final hearing, given that settlement of the sale is unlikely to be effected prior to that date.
I will make orders that the parties have liberty to apply with respect to the sale to ensure that if any issue arises pending sale the matter can be dealt with upon application to the Court.
I will otherwise make directions for the fixing of the parties’ competing applications for final hearing in December 2015.
Accordingly, I make orders as follows:-
1.That on or before 4.00 pm on 4 September 2015 the husband do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to vary the lease between B Pty Ltd and C Pty Ltd with respect to the property situate at D Street, Suburb F (“D Street”) to provide that Item 18 of the Schedule to the Lease of Real Estate, annexed at PWJ-2 to the husband’s affidavit filed 28 July 2015, be varied to read as follows:-
“(1)       Additional term of three (3) years.”
2.That forthwith the husband both personally and in his capacity as director of B Pty Ltd do all such acts and things and sign all such documents as may be required to sell D Street (“the sale”) and for the purposes of effecting the sale:-
(a)    the sale be conducted by an agent as agreed between the parties, such agreement to be confirmed in writing within seven days, and in default of agreement in writing, the selling agent to be nominated by the President of the Real Estate Institute of Victoria, or his nominee (“the selling agent”);
(b)    the method of sale be by way of public auction;
(c)    D Street be sold subject to the existing lease as varied pursuant to Order 1 hereof;
(d)    the reserve price be as agreed between the parties in writing no less than 14 days prior to the auction date, and in default of agreement to be determined by a valuer nominated by the President of the Real Estate Institute of Victoria, or his nominee.
3.That upon settlement of the sale the proceeds be applied as follows:-
(a)first to pay all costs, commissions and expenses of the sale;
(b)second, to discharge the following liabilities secure by way of mortgage to the National Australia Bank being loan numbers ending in:
(i)     …;
(ii)    …;
(iii)   …;
(iv)   …;
(v)     …;
(vi)   …; and
(vii)     …;
(c) third, the balance then remaining to be placed into an interest bearing account in the joint names of the parties to be held upon trust for them by the wife’s solicitor until further order.
4.That each party have liberty to apply with respect to the terms and conditions of the sale.
5.That the wife’s amended application in a case filed 3 July 2015 and the husband’s response to application in a case filed 28 July 2015 be otherwise dismissed.
6.That each party’s costs of this day be reserved.
7.That pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) this matter reasonably required the attendance of counsel.
8.That all applications for final orders be adjourned for hearing before Justice Johns on 7 December 2015 at 10 am as a five-day matter and that the evidence in chief of all witnesses be given by affidavit.
9.That the matter be listed for mention before Justice Johns at 9.30 am on 13 November 2015.
10.That by 4.00 pm on 28 September 2015 the applicant file and serve upon all other parties:
(a)any amended application setting out with precision the orders to be sought;
(b)any further supplementary affidavits of evidence in chief of all witnesses including the applicant relied upon (noting that affidavits relied upon for previous hearings cannot be relied upon as evidence in chief); and
(c)an updated financial statement that complies with chapter 13 of the Family Law Rules.
11.That the applicant pay all setting down and trial fees by 4 pm on 28 September 2015.
12.That by 4.00 pm on 19 October 2015 the respondent file and serve upon all other parties:
(a)any amended response setting out with precision what orders are being sought;
(b)any further supplementary affidavits of evidence in chief of all witnesses including the respondent relied upon (noting that affidavits relied upon for previous hearings cannot be relied upon as evidence in chief);
(c)an updated financial statement that complies with chapter 13 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
13.That no party file any further material other than as provided by these orders without leave of the Court.
14.That prior to commencement of the trial, the parties determine whether there are to be any rulings required arising out of objections to evidence and such objections be referred to in the parties’ outlines of case.
15.That all parties have leave to issue subpoenae for the production of documents by arrangement with the registrar docketed with the management of the file.
16.That all parties have liberty to approach the registrar responsible for the management of the court file to vary the obligations under these orders to ensure readiness for trial.
17.Should any party fail to comply with these orders or the ensuing amending directions of the docketed registrar,
(a)the Court may relist the case requiring the parties to justify why it should not be taken out of the list; and
(b)the party who has complied may immediately thereafter file an application in a case supported by an affidavit seeking for the matter to proceed on an undefended basis.
18.That the practitioners for the parties file and serve electronically to … by 4.00 pm on 2 December 2015 the following:
(a)a concise set of orders to be sought if different from those already filed;
(b)a list of the applications and affidavits to be read and, if not the whole affidavit, the relevant paragraphs relied upon;
(c)a list of assets and liabilities;
(d)a list of objections to evidence upon which rulings are required; and
(e)a bullet-point summary of argument in relation to the issues in dispute.
19.That each party provide to the court at the commencement of the hearing, a statement setting out the costs incurred to that date and from what source those funds have been paid and what costs are expected to be incurred until the completion of the hearing.

I certify that the preceding forty-seven (47) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Johns delivered on 20 August 2015

Associate: Alison Power

Date: 20 August 2015

[2015] FamCA 686

20 August 2015

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Property Law

Civil Procedure

Legal Concepts

Costs

Remedies

Procedural Fairness

Discovery

Appeal

Jurisdiction