Jepson & Jepson (No 6)

Case [2024] FedCFamC1F 290

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Jepson & Jepson (No 6) [2024] FedCFamC1F 290

File number: SYC 2100 of 2016
Judgment of: CAMPTON J
Date of judgment: 2 May 2024
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INJUNCTIONS – Where the wife seeks for an adjournment of the final trial, litigation funding by way of a dollar-for-dollar order, for the discharge of an order restraining her from dealing with her entitlements received on the distribution of the estates of her late parents without first giving notice to the husband and to provide a copy of orders made in this proceeding to the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions as an adjunct to the husband’s pending criminal charges – Where the husband opposes the relief sought by the wife and seeks orders to provide copies of affidavits and case outline documents filed by the wife in these proceedings to be provided to the NSW Department of Public Prosecutions and/or the District Court and Supreme Court of NSW, and for the previous injunctive orders to be varied to require his written consent to any dealings of those funds by the wife – Where these proceedings have been on foot for over eight years – Where the husband does not particularise the prejudice to him of the wife accessing her own property – Application for adjournment of the trial dates and for a litigation funding order dismissed – Injunctive orders discharged – Costs reserved to trial.
Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss75 and 79

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth)
Cases cited:

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27

Franklin & Ennis [2019] FamCAFC 91

Gollings & Scott (2007) 37 Fam LR 428; [2007] FamCA 397

Jepson & Jepson (No 4) [2023] FedCFamC1F 937
Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 50
Date of hearing: 2 May 2024
Place: Melbourne (by video conference)
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Watkins
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Powe & White Family Lawyers
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Did not participate

ORDERS

SYC 2100 of 2016

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:

MS JEPSON

Applicant
AND:

MR JEPSON

First Respondent

MS B JEPSON

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

CAMPTON J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 MAY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The wife’s application to vacate the trial dates listed to commence over five days commencing 1 July 2024 is refused.

2.Orders 3 and 4 made 18 January 2019 are discharged.

3.The Application in a Proceeding of the wife filed 22 April 2024, save as to costs, be otherwise dismissed.

4.The Response to an Application in a Proceeding of the husband filed 26 April 2024, save as to costs, be dismissed.

5.The costs of and incidental to the Application in a Proceeding filed 22 April 2024 and Response to an Application in a proceeding filed 26 April 2024, be reserved to the trial listed to…

Continue reading Jepson & Jepson (No 6)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Jepson & Jepson (No 6) [2024] FedCFamC1F 290
Case
[2024] FedCFamC1F 290
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia heard an application brought by Ms Jepson, the wife, seeking an adjournment of the final trial dates, the discharge of an order restricting her from dealing with inheritance funds without notifying her husband, and for a dollar-for-dollar litigation funding order. The husband opposed these applications and sought orders to provide copies of affidavits and case outline documents to the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions and to vary the injunctive orders to require his written consent for any dealings of those funds by Ms Jepson. The proceedings between the parties had been ongoing for over eight years. The husband did not particularise the prejudice he would suffer if Ms Jepson accessed her inheritance funds. The court dismissed Ms Jepson's application for an adjournment and for a dollar-for-dollar litigation funding order. The orders restraining her from dealing with her inheritance funds without notifying her husband were discharged. The costs of the applications were reserved to the trial.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Ms Jepson should be granted an adjournment of the trial dates, the discharge of orders restricting her from dealing with inheritance funds without notifying her husband, and a dollar-for-dollar litigation funding order. The court also had to consider the husband's request to provide copies of case documents to the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions and to vary the injunctive orders to require his written consent for any dealings of those funds by Ms Jepson. The court was required to weigh the need for finality in the proceedings against the parties' rights and interests in the context of the long-standing litigation. The court had to determine whether the husband had demonstrated sufficient prejudice to warrant the relief sought.

The court found that Ms Jepson would have ample resources to fund her legal costs, and thus her application for a dollar-for-dollar costs order was dismissed. The court noted that the husband had not particularised the prejudice he would suffer if Ms Jepson accessed her inheritance funds. The court considered that the proceedings had been on foot for over eight years, and that it was in the interests of finality and justice to dismiss the application for an adjournment and to discharge the orders restricting Ms Jepson from dealing with her inheritance funds without notifying her husband. The court also dismissed the husband's request to provide copies of case documents to the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions and to vary the injunctive orders to require his written consent for any dealings of those funds by Ms Jepson. The court reserved the costs of the applications to the trial.

The court ordered that Ms Jepson's application to vacate the trial dates listed to commence over five days commencing 1 July 2024 be refused. Orders 3 and 4 made 18 January 2019 were discharged. The Application in a Proceeding of Ms Jepson filed 22 April 2024, save as to costs, was dismissed. The Response to an Application in a Proceeding of the husband filed 26 April 2024, save as to costs, was dismissed. The costs of and incidental to the Application in a Proceeding filed 22 April 2024 and Response to an Application in a proceeding filed 26 April 2024 were reserved to the trial listed to commence on 1 July 2024.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 2100 of 2016

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS JEPSON

Applicant

AND:

MR JEPSON

First Respondent

MS B JEPSON

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

CAMPTON J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 MAY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The wife’s application to vacate the trial dates listed to commence over five days commencing 1 July 2024 is refused.

2. Orders 3 and 4 made 18 January 2019 are discharged.

3. The Application in a Proceeding of the wife filed 22 April 2024, save as to costs, be otherwise dismissed.

4. The Response to an Application in a Proceeding of the husband filed 26 April 2024, save as to costs, be dismissed.

5. The costs of and incidental to the Application in a Proceeding filed 22 April 2024 and Response to an Application in a proceeding filed 26 April 2024, be reserved to the trial listed to commence on 1 July 2024.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

For the reasons that follow, the wife’s application for the trial dates to be vacated or adjourned, and for a litigation funding “dollar-for-dollar” order, is dismissed. Orders 3 and 4 made 18 January 2019 will be discharged. The balance of the wife’s Application in a Proceeding filed 22 April 2024 and the husband’s Response to an Application in a Proceeding filed 26 April 2024, save as to costs, is dismissed.BACKGROUND The husband and the wife commenced cohabitation in 1997 and were married in 1998. They separated in November 2015 and were divorced in 2018. There are two children of the marriage, both of whom are now adults. The background to the litigation in this forum informs and gives context to the current application of the wife. As such, I will provide a brief outline of background facts and contentions as they are relevant. One of the issues in these proceedings pertains to ownership of, and value of, a substantial collection of valuables. These proceedings were commenced in what was then Family Court of Australia, by way of an Initiating Application filed by the husband on 7 April 2016, as amended on 4 October 2016, seeking orders as to the adjustment of property pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), including:(a)That the wife transfer to the husband her right, title and interest in a property at L Street, Suburb P (“the Suburb P property”) and a property at V Street, Suburb U (“the Suburb U property”);(b)For the husband to discharge the mortgages secured on the Suburb P property and Suburb U property; and(c)For the husband to pay the wife a “cash lump-sum” property settlement. The husband has not amended his final relief sought for a period approaching eight years. The relief he seeks is not competent. The Suburb P property, of which the wife was the sole registered proprietor, has been sold. $1,494,541, being the current remaining balance of the proceeds of sale, are held in a controlled monies account by a firm of solicitors. The sale of Suburb U was completed in 2016 for around $1,600,000. During the hearing the husband’s solicitor submitted that the husband is impecunious and in receipt of a Centrelink benefit. The husband in his affidavit filed yesterday afternoon gives evidence as to the wife being deficient and/or tardy in disclosing particulars of the receipt and application of funds she received from Y Company (then applied to acquire her Suburb FF property) and as to the receipt and value of the benefits she received from her parents’ estates. That said, it does not appear that the husband contends that his disclosure complaints will lead to a submission at trial that the wife has property secreted from the Court such that the significance of her contributions are all but eliminated; instead, it may be that the effect of non-disclosure was no more than to complicate the fact finding process (Franklin & Ennis [2019] FamCAFC 91 at [9]). By way of a Response to an Initiating Application filed 28 September 2016, as amended 11 December 2023, the wife contends that it is not just and equitable to make orders adjusting property between the parties. The wife’s affidavit identifies that she has received, after the date of separation, by way of inheritance approximately $1.256 million from her parents’ estate and that she has acquired a property at Suburb FF valued at $1.725 million, applying the proceeds of a Y Company payment she received.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The wife will have ample resources to fund her legal costs. Her application for a dollar-for-dollar costs order will be dismissed.CONCLUSION Costs will be reserved to trial. For all of the above reasons, orders are made as set out.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.