Jarrow & Manard - [2021] FedCFamC2F 268

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Jarrow & Manard [2021] FedCFamC2F 268

File number(s): PAC 2593 of 2019

Judgment of: JUDGE OBRADOVIC

Date of judgment: 29 October 2021

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – property – de facto relationship – adjustment of property interests – findings of credit –assessment of contributions – just and equitable.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 90SF, 90SM, 90RD.

Cases cited:
Bevan & Bevan [2014] FamCAFC 19
Chapman & Chapman [2014] FamCAFC 91
Kowaliw & Kowaliw [1981] FamCA 70
Oamra & Williams [2021] FamCAFC 117
Norbis v Norbis [1986] HCA 17
Peters & Walker [2015] FamCA 732
Russell & Russell (1999) FLC 92-877
Scott & Danton [2014] FamCAFC 203
Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52
Teal & Teal [2010] FamCAFC 120
Trevi & Trevi [2018] FamCAFC 173

Weir & Weir [1992] FamCA 69

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Date of last submission/s: 24 March 2021

Date of hearing: 25 September 2020 and 29 January 2021

Place: Parramatta

Number of paragraphs: 90

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Fowler

Solicitor for the Applicant: Bell Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Cotter-Moroz

Solicitor for the Respondent: Pannu Lawyers
ORDERS

PAC 2593 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS JARROW

Applicant

AND:
MR MANARD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE OBRADOVIC

DATE OF ORDER:

29 OCTOBER 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Within 42 days, the Respondent, Mr Manard, shall pay to the Applicant, Ms Jarrow:
(a)the sum amount of $141,462; and
(b)the sum amount of $12,500, being the costs which remain unpaid pursuant to orders made on 12 June 2020.

(collectively referred to as “the Sum”)
2.In the event that the Respondent does not pay to the Applicant the whole of the Sum contained in Order 1 herein within 42 days, then the Respondent shall, within 42 days thereafter, do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to offer the property situate at and known as B Street, Suburb C, NSW, being the whole of the land contained in Folio Identifier Certificate of Title … (“the B Street, Suburb C property”) for sale by auction and to give effect to the sale the Respondent shall:
(a)Place the property with an agent as agreed by both parties and failing agreement as shall be appointed by the President of the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales.
(b)Execute all documents required by the agent for the sale of the property.
(c)Request the agent to recommend a reserve price be placed on the property.
(d)Agree with the Applicant (via her solicitor) on the reserve price, and if the parties cannot agree, then the listing price or reserve price shall be set by the nominee of the President of the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales.
(e)Pay to the agent any sums which are requested for advertising expenses in relation to the sale of the property.
(f)Attend at the auction and negotiate with the highest bidder if the reserve price is…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Jarrow & Manard

Details

AGLC: Jarrow & Manard [2021] FedCFamC2F 268
Case: [2021] FedCFamC2F 268
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned a property adjustment application between Ms Jarrow and Mr Manard following the breakdown of their de facto relationship. The primary issue for determination was whether it was just and equitable to make property adjustment orders under s.90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and if so, what orders should be made. The court considered the contributions of each party during the relationship, the assets and liabilities of the parties, and the factors outlined in s.90SF(3). The court found that it was just and equitable to make property adjustment orders in favour of Ms Jarrow. The court ordered that Mr Manard pay Ms Jarrow $141,462 or alternatively, if the property at B Street, Suburb C was sold, that Ms Jarrow be paid from the net proceeds of sale. In the event that the net proceeds were less than $141,462, Mr Manard was to pay the shortfall. The court also ordered that Ms Jarrow was to receive 20% of Mr Manard's superannuation. The parties were each to retain their respective personal property, superannuation, and other assets. The parties were to bear their own costs of the proceedings.

Orders