Johanson & Johanson (No 2)

Case [2022] FedCFamC1F 1053


Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia

(DIVISION 1)

Johanson & Johanson (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 1053

File number(s): BRC 6694 of 2017
Judgment of: BAUMANN J
Date of judgment: 22 December 2022
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – INTERIM – Injunctions
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Cases cited:

Johanson & Johanson [2021] FamCA 609

Johanson & Johanson [2021] FedCFamC1F 148

Johanson & Johanson [2022] FedCFamC1A 74

Patton & Patton [2015] FamCA 1083

Tsiang & Wu & Ors (2019) FLC 93-911

Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 15
Date of hearing: 11 October 2022
Place: Brisbane
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Minnery
Solicitor for the Applicant: Naughton McCarthy Family Lawyers
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Coulsen
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Morgan Mac Lawyers
Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr Gordon
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Wilsons The Family Lawyers

ORDERS

BRC 6694 of 2017

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS JOHANSON

Applicant

AND:

MR JOHANSON

First Respondent

MS R

Second Respondent

order made by:

BAUMANN J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 DECEMBER 2022

THE COURT ORDERS:

1.That until further order, Mr Johanson be restrained by injunction from selling, disposing of, encumbering, further encumbering or in any way dealing with the property situated at P Street, Suburb Q, in the State of Queensland (“the Suburb Q property”).

2.That pending further order the First Respondent be restrained by injunction from doing any act or thing to cause any of the following to occur without the written consent of the Applicant or by order of the Court:

(a)Causing any payments to be made by S Pty Ltd to the First Respondent or anyone acting on his behalf, except for recept payments of dividends or reimbursement of expenses due to the First Respondent and paid by S Pty Ltd;

(b)Causing any payments to be made from the First Respondent’s United Kingdom bank account to the First Respondent or anyone acting on his behalf except that direct debits may continue to occur pursuant to direct debit arrangements in place as at the date of this Order.

3.That the Second Respondent (in any capacity) be restrained by injunction to not transfer or deal with in any manner any funds held in the following accounts:

(a)T Bank term deposit account number …43;

(b)T Bank term deposit account number …51; and

(c)V Bank account number …19.

4.That the First Respondent and/or Second Respondent forthwith cause to be paid to his solicitors’ trust account all of the proceeds of sale of his sixty (60) ordinary shares in S Pty Ltd and any other money received by from S Pty Ltd (including dividends) (whether received prior to after the date of this Order) with such monies to then be held and not disbursed without the written consent of the Applicant or order of the Court.

5.That otherwise the Application in a Proceeding filed 15 June 2022 be dismissed.

6.That the costs of the parties are reserved to the trial to commence…

Continue reading Johanson & Johanson (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Johanson & Johanson (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 1053
Case
[2022] FedCFamC1F 1053
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Johanson & Johanson (No 2) involved a dispute between Ms R and the husband over the handling of financial assets following the husband’s retirement. The matter was before the Court which had to decide on various interim orders to protect the assets pending a final determination of the rights of the parties.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether to extend the existing injunctions preventing the sale of property and preservation of a motor vehicle to the husband, and whether to order Ms R to pay certain funds to the wife’s solicitors. The wife argued that the husband had transferred funds to Ms R which were then deposited into various accounts, some of which were offshore. The Court had to weigh these arguments against Ms R’s affidavit and the concessions she made during the proceedings.

The Court found that extending the existing injunctions to the husband was appropriate as it preserved the equity in the property and the value of the motor vehicle. It also granted the wife’s application to restrain Ms R from dealing with certain bank accounts, as Ms R had conceded to this in her response. However, the Court did not find it necessary at this stage to order the tracing and recovery of specific funds, as this was more appropriately addressed at the trial. The Court emphasised that the wife’s application did not consider the potential financial disadvantages of bringing offshore funds back into Australia.

The Court’s decision resulted in the extension of the injunctions to the husband and the restraint order on Ms R’s bank accounts. The Court did not make any orders regarding the tracing and recovery of specific funds at this stage of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

The Court makes the following findings which offer context to the pathway adopted in support of the orders now pronounced, namely:(a)the injunction made 17 August 2022 from Ms R selling or otherwise dealing with the property at P Street, Suburb Q preserves the equity in that property. According to the affidavit of Ms R, the property is worth $3.9 million with a mortgage at October 2022 of approximately $3,071,410 – an equity of over $800,000. Considering mortgage repayments are being maintained by the husband and Ms R, the debt may now be slightly less. It is appropriate to extend a similar injunction to the husband;(b)Order 3 made 17 August 2022 to preserve Motor Vehicle 1, which has an estimated value of $70,000;(c)the application for proposed order 7 would require Ms R to pay to the wife’s solicitors monies which the wife claims the husband paid to Ms R which ultimately have been deposited into bank accounts, under the control of Ms R, in three separate bank deposits in City W or elsewhere. On an interim basis, it is not necessary to audit or trace some of the funds, as that will possibly be an exercise to be undertaken at the trial. However, Ms R in her affidavit at paragraphs 8 to 18 deposes as to a number of transactions, inter alia:(i)Upon the husband’s retirement in mid-2022 (he having turned 60 years in 2022), the ability then to access some funds otherwise preserved in superannuation arose. She received monies directed to her by the husband, originating, it is claimed, from various sources including:(A)funds totalling $138,431, in three separate deposits relating to the gross proceeds of sale by the husband of his interest in the entity S Pty Ltd (“the entity”); (B)a payment of $10,206.70 from the entity being the husband’s personal account balance in his private business account; and(C)a payment of $529,809.16 being from the offset mortgage account in respect of the Suburb Q property.(ii)Ms R used $114,086 of these funds as set out at paragraphs 14 and 15 of her affidavit;(iii)Having made a decision to maximise investment returns, at the time of the interim hearing, Ms R controlled (at least) the following accounts that are easily “traceable” to funds prima facie, being the entitlement of the husband, namely:(A)T Bank term deposit…43 with an Australian currency equivalent of approximately $307,645;(B)T Bank term deposit…51 with an Australian currency equivalent of approximately $76,911; and(C)V Bank account…19 with a balance of $87,500.(d)the response filed on behalf of Ms R on 6 October 2022 conceded an order restraining her from dealing with these three investments – having a combined balance of approximately $472,056. At least the term deposits are accruing interest;(e)the wife’s application, and submissions, seek in effect to cause the funds deposited offshore to be brought back into Australia. No consideration as to possible financial disadvantages of doing so was the subject of evidence. Further, the wife seeks to recover the payments totalling $114,086, although no source for recovery, even if appropriate, was identified by the wife. Ms R deposes that $39,086 was paid to a company undertaking repair works to the Suburb Q property – so, in fact, those funds have already been returned to Australia.conclusion

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.