FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Keadle & Holcombe [2024] FedCFamC2F 808
File number(s): ADC 1734 of 2020 Judgment of: JUDGE PARKER Date of judgment: 26 June 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where it is alleged that the Husband improperly removed funds from the parties’ self-managed superannuation fund – where there is a consequential dispute as to finalisation of the accounts of the fund Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75, 79, 81
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 8.15(3)(e)
Cases cited: BAR & JMR (No 2) [2005] FamCA 386; (2005) FLC ¶93-231
Best & Best (1993) FLC ¶92-418
Bishop & Bishop [2013] FamCAFC 138; (2013) FLC ¶93-553
Browne & Green [1999] FamCA 1483; (1999) FLC ¶92-873
C & C [1998] FamCA 143
Chang & Su [2002] FamCA 156; (2002) FLC ¶93-117
NHC & RCH [2004] FamCA 633; (2004) FLC ¶93-204
Clauson & Clauson [1995] FamCA 10; (1995) FLC ¶92-595
Clowes & Konig [2022] FedCFamC1F 565
C & C [2005] FamCA 429; (2005) FLC ¶93-220
DJM & JLM (1998) FLC 92-816
D & D [2006] FamCA 199 (2006) FLC ¶93-256
Franklin & Ennis [2019] FamCAFC 91
Fu & Tiao [2023] FedCFamC1F 393
Gabel & Yardley [2008] FamCAFC 162; (2008) FLC ¶93-386
Gould & Gould [1995] FamCA 142; (1996) FLC ¶92-657
Grier & Malphas [2016] FamCAFC 8418
Kowaliw & Kowaliw (1981) FLC ¶91-092
L & L (2006) FLC ¶93-254
Mayne & Mayne (No 2) [2012] FamCAFC 90; (2012) FLC ¶93-510
AJO & GRO (2005) FLC ¶93-218
Palumbo & Mandel [2019] FamCAFC 228; (2019) FLC ¶93-929
Paul & Paul [2012] FamCAFC 64; (2012) FLC ¶93-505
Stanford & Stanford [2012] HCA 52; (2012) 247 CLR 108
Townsend & Townsend (1995) FLC ¶92-569
Trevi & Trevi [2018] FamCAFC 173; (2018) FLC ¶93-858
Trustee of the Property of Lemnos (A Bankrupt) & Lemnos & Anor [2009] FamCAFC 20; (2009) FLC ¶93-394
Weir & Weir [1992] FamCA 69; (1993) FLC ¶92-338
Whitehead & Whitehead [1979] FamCA 41; (1979) FLC ¶90-673
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 155 Date of hearing: 7-9 May 2024 Place: Adelaide Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Dillon Solicitor for the Applicant: Thompson Smyth Barristers & Solicitors Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Richards Solicitor for the Respondent: AK Family Law ORDERS
ADC 1734 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MS KEADLE
Applicant
AND: MR HOLCOMBE
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE PARKER
DATE OF ORDER:
26 JUNE 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The parties forthwith do all acts and things required to:
(a)obtain advice from B Company or such other advisors as may be agreed between them as to the most effective strategy for finalising the accounts of the Super Fund 1 (‘the SMSF’) in a manner consistent with the findings of this judgment having regard to the need to…
Continue reading Keadle & Holcombe
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Keadle & Holcombe [2024] FedCFamC2F 808
- Case
- [2024] FedCFamC2F 808
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Judge Parker acknowledged the complexity of the issues and the need for professional advice to navigate the finalisation process effectively. The court ordered that the parties obtain and implement advice from financial advisors to finalise the SMSF accounts in a manner consistent with the court's findings, aiming to minimise financial consequences. The court also granted the parties liberty to provide copies of the judgment to their advisors and to apply for further orders if needed. The matter is scheduled for a mention on 11 September 2024 to manage the case further. The parties may also jointly apply to vary the mention date if necessary. This decision ensures that the SMSF accounts are finalised in a structured and informed manner, considering the unique financial implications involved.
Orders
Orders of the court
ADC 1734 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:
MS KEADLE
Applicant
AND:
MR HOLCOMBE
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE PARKER
DATE OF ORDER:
26 JUNE 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The parties forthwith do all acts and things required to:
(a) obtain advice from B Company or such other advisors as may be agreed between them as to the most effective strategy for finalising the accounts of the Super Fund 1 (‘the SMSF’) in a manner consistent with the findings of this judgment having regard to the need to minimise any taxation or other financial consequences to the SMSF and/or the parties;
(b) implement such strategy; and
(c) ascertain the value of each of the parties’ member entitlements in the SMSF.
2. The parties each be at liberty to provide a copy of these reasons for judgment to the advisor referred to at order 1 hereof and any other professional or organisation for the purpose of obtaining advice with respect to or implementing these orders.
3. The parties each have liberty to apply with respect to the implementation of order 1 hereof.
4. The matter be listed for mention on 11 September 2024 at 9.30am for further case management.
5. The parties be at liberty to seek to vary the mention date provided for herein by way of joint communication to the chambers of Judge Parker.
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).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
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.