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
- AGLC
- Johanson & Johanson (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 1053
- Case
- [2022] FedCFamC1F 1053
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.