JILLETT & JILLETT

Case [2019] FamCA 48


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JILLETT & JILLETT [2019] FamCA 48
FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Slip Rule Application – Where error as to value attributed to one asset – Where consequent mathematical error in final order as to cash adjustment payable to wife – Where appropriate to amend orders and reasons for judgment accordingly.
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 17.02, 17.02A
Dewell and Harris and Anor [2019] FamCA 10
Elyard Corporation Pty Ltd v DDB Needham Sydney Pty Ltd (1995) 133 ALR 206
Gludau & Gludau (No. 2) (2013) FLC 93-562
Jillett & Jillett [2018] FamCA 913
Medlow & Medlow (No 2) [2016] FamCAFC 63
Vadisanis [2015] FamCAFC 180
APPLICANT: Ms Jillett
RESPONDENT: Mr Jillett
FILE NUMBER: DUC 356 of 2015
DATE DELIVERED: 8 February 2019
PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta
PLACE HEARD: Parramatta
JUDGMENT OF: Foster J
HEARING DATE: 14 December 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Wong
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Campbell Paton & Taylor
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Barnett
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Farrar Gesini Dunn

Orders

  1. That Order (1) made on 9 November 2018 be amended to provide that the husband pay to the wife the sum of $658,837.50 within three months from the date of these orders.

  2. That reasons for judgment dated 9 November 2018 and the mathematical calculations therein be amended to reflect the above order and these Reasons for Judgment.

  3. That any further or other submission as to costs and the costs of the Single Expert be filed and served within 14 days and thereafter judgment as to those issues be reserved to chambers.

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

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: DUC 356 of 2015

Ms Jillett

Applicant

And

Mr Jillett

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 9 November 2018 the Court delivered reasons for judgment and orders in this matter as to property settlement: Jillett & Jillett [2018] FamCA 913.

  2. Orders were made as follows:

    (1)That the husband pay to the wife the sum of $321,337.50 within three months from the date of these orders.

    (2)That a base amount of $140,000.00 is allocated to the wife out of the husband’s interest in the B Super (“the fund”) Member No ...

    (3)That in accordance with section 90MT(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975:

    (a)The wife is entitled to be paid the amount calculated in accordance with Part 6 of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 using the base…

Continue reading JILLETT & JILLETT

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
JILLETT & JILLETT [2019] FamCA 48
Case
[2019] FamCA 48
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Jillett & Jillett*, Foster J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application to amend a previous order concerning the payment of a sum of money by the husband to the wife. The dispute centred on the precise amount payable under an earlier order and the consequential amendment of the court's reasons for judgment and mathematical calculations.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to amend the existing financial orders to reflect a revised calculation of the sum owed by the husband to the wife. This required the court to review the original judgment and the mathematical basis upon which it was made, and to determine the correct figure to be paid.

Foster J amended the previous order to stipulate that the husband pay the wife the sum of $658,837.50 within three months from the date of the new orders. The court also ordered that the reasons for judgment and the mathematical calculations contained therein be amended to reflect this revised payment amount. Further submissions regarding costs and the costs of a single expert were to be filed and served within 14 days, with judgment on those matters reserved.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That Order (1) made on 9 November 2018 be amended to provide that the husband pay to the wife the sum of $658,837.50 within three months from the date of these orders.

2.

That reasons for judgment dated 9 November 2018 and the mathematical calculations therein be amended to reflect the above order and these Reasons for Judgment.

3.

That any further or other submission as to costs and the costs of the Single Expert be filed and served within 14 days and thereafter judgment as to those issues be reserved to chambers.

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

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.