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) |
| 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
The application filed by Mr Keene on 22 April 2013 is dismissed.
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
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.
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.
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] FCCA 540
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.