Julien & Perrin - [2023] FedCFamC2F 841

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Julien & Perrin [2023] FedCFamC2F 841

File number(s): SYC 8105 of 2022

Judgment of: JUDGE JENKINS

Date of judgment: 8 June 2023

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – application for review – periodic spousal maintenance – interim property payment – litigation funding – de facto relationship

Legislation: Family Law Act1975 (Cth) ss 90SE, 90SF, 90SM, 114, 117

Cases cited:
Artinos & Artinos [2023] FedCFamC1F 314

Brown & Brown [2007] FamCA 151

Elei & Dodt [2018] FamCAFC 92

Foley & Foley [2016] FCWA 68

Hakim v Salim [2022] FedCFamC1A 21

Salvage & Fosse [2020] FamCAFC 144

Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52

Strahan & Strahan (2011) FLC 93-466

Wilson & Wilson (1989) FLC 92-033

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 62

Date of last submission/s: 8 June 2023

Date of hearing: 8 June 2023

Place: Adelaide

Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms Morozov from Barkus Doolan Winning

Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr Milevski from Milevsi Family Lawyers
ORDERS

SYC 8105 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR PERRIN

Applicant

AND:
MS JULIEN

Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE JENKINS

DATE OF ORDER:

8 JUNE 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Order 1 of the orders of the Senior Judicial Registrar made 30 March 2023, be varied such that the Respondent de-facto husband pay maintenance to the Applicant de-facto wife in the sum of one thousand, three hundred and ninety two dollars ($1,392) per week with such payment to commence from Friday 9 June 2023.
2.Order 2(d) of the orders made on 30 March 2023 be discharged.
3.The Applicant de-facto wife retain the funds paid to her by the husband in the sum of one hundred and twenty seven thousand, seven hundred and twelve dollars ($127,712) with such sum to be characterised as lump sum spousal maintenance.
4.The husband’s Application for Review filed on 19 April 2023 be otherwise dismissed.

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.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(EX TEMPORE)
JUDGE JENKINS

These reasons were delivered orally and have been corrected and edited from transcript. I have endeavoured to correct grammatical errors, clarify any citations and generally make my oral reasons easier to read.
INTRODUCTION
This is an Application…

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 Julien & Perrin

Details

AGLC: Julien & Perrin [2023] FedCFamC2F 841
Case: [2023] FedCFamC2F 841
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns an Application for Review of interim orders made by the Senior Judicial Registrar in the matter of Julien and Perrin. The husband, the applicant, seeks to vary the periodic spousal maintenance payment and to discharge the interim property payments made to the wife. The wife opposes the application for review and seeks further interim payments, including for litigation expenses and to maintain the running costs of her business. The court was required to decide whether the wife was unable to support herself adequately and therefore entitled to spousal maintenance. It also had to determine whether the wife was entitled to further interim payments to fund litigation expenses and maintain her business. The court found that while the wife was not able to support herself adequately, she had some capacity to contribute to her own support. The court assessed the wife's expenses and determined that she should receive $1,392 per week in periodic maintenance, taking into account her earning capacity. The court also found that the wife was not entitled to further interim payments for litigation expenses or to maintain the running costs of her business. The court concluded that any further payments would be futile and that the wife's entitlement had already been satisfied by the funds she had already received. The court therefore varied the periodic maintenance payment and discharged the interim property payments, ordering that the wife retain the funds already paid to her as lump sum spousal maintenance.

Orders