Keene and Scofield and Anor

Link copied
Case Copied 41 min read

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KEENE & SCOFIELD & ANOR [2013] FCCA 540
Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Principal proceedings concerned with existence or otherwise of a de facto relationship between the parties – applicant seeks to join third party creditor as a party to the proceedings – or in the alternative for grant of non suit injunction restraining third party from pursing proceedings in the District Court to recoup debts – whether injunction reasonably necessary to effect any division of property between the principal parties concerned – no declaration as yet made regarding existence of de facto relationship – matters to be considered – costs – what is just – application wholly unsuccessful – order for costs made.

Legislation:  

Family Law Act1975 ss.4A; 4AA; 90AF; 90RD; 90SB; 90SM; 90SK; 90SS; 90TA; 114(2)(a); 117(1); 117(2)
Corporations Act2001: ss.9; 515 and 527
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s.15AB

Keene & Scofield [2012] FMCAfam 28
Keene & Scofield (No.2) [2012] FMCAfam 1357
Jonah v White (2012) 45 Fam LR 460
Ascot Investments Pty Ltd v Harper & Harper (1981) FLC 91-000
McCarney & McCarney (1977) FLC 90-200
Esmore & Esmore (1979) FLC 90-711
Applicant: MR KEENE
First Respondent: MS SCOFIELD
Second Respondent: MR S AS LIQUIDATOR OF [T] PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
File Number: ADC 983 of 2011
Judgment of: Judge Brown
Hearing date: 24 May 2013
Date of Last Submission: 24 May 2013
Delivered at: Adelaide
Delivered on: 14 June 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: In person
Counsel for the First Respondent: No appearance
Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr Vlahos
Solicitors for the Second Respondent: Sheahan Lock Partners

ORDERS

  1. The application filed by Mr Keene on 22 April 2013 is dismissed.

  2. The applicant pay the second respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00).

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Keene & Scofield & Anor is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT ADELAIDE

ADC 983 of 2011

MR KEENE

Applicant

And

MS SCOFIELD

First Respondent

And

MR S AS LIQUIDATOR OF [T] PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(As Corrected)

Introduction

  1. These proceedings arise by way of an application in a case filed on 22 April 2013.  The effective respondent to the application is Mr S, who is the liquidator of [T] Pty Ltd.  Mr Keene is the sole shareholder and director of [T] and is, to all intents and purposes, its alter ego. 

  2. Mr Keene has been involved in protracted litigation, in this court, with Ms Scofield, which arises pursuant to the provisions of Part VIIIAB of the Family Law Act, which deals with financial matter relating to de facto relationships.

  3. Mr Keene wishes to join Mr S as a party to the proceedings between him and Ms Scofield and, as a consequence of that, Mr S be restrained from taking any steps to recover debts alleged to be owed by Mr Keene to…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Keene and Scofield and Anor and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2013] FCCA 540
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Keene and Schofield and Anor*, heard before Judge Brown, the applicant, Mr Keene, sought orders against the respondents, including Ms Schofield. The precise nature of the dispute and the relief sought by Mr Keene are not detailed in the provided text, beyond the fact that his application was ultimately dismissed.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Mr Keene's application should be granted. The court was required to consider the merits of the application and determine if the grounds upon which it was brought were sufficient to warrant the orders sought.

Judge Brown dismissed Mr Keene's application. The reasoning behind this decision is not elaborated upon in the provided text. Consequently, the court ordered that Mr Keene pay the second respondent's costs fixed at $2,000.00.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The application filed by Mr Keene on 22 April 2013 is dismissed.

2.

The applicant pay the second respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00).

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.