KEHOE & SEDEN - [2019] FamCA 989

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KEHOE & SEDEN

[2019] FamCA 989

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim – Where the wife seeks a partial property settlement of $250,000 – Where the husband seeks to pay $50,000 – Where the wife has no independent resources to fund her litigation – Order made for the wife to receive $100,000 partial property settlement.

FAMILY LAW – SPOUSE MAINTENANCE – Where the husband pays the wife $3500 per month for financial support – Where the wife seeks an additional $2,600 per week – Where the wife lives overseas – Where the wife has primary care for the 17-month old child – Order for the husband to pay $1,000 per week spousal maintenance to the wife.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Strahan & Strahan (2009) FLC 93-466

APPLICANT:

Ms Kehoe

RESPONDENT:

Mr Seden

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

7833

2018

DATE DELIVERED:

13 December 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Stevenson J

HEARING DATE:

24 October 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Kearney SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Pearson Emerson Meyer Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Roberts

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Argyle Lawyers Pty Ltd

Orders

The husband pay to the wife, by way of interim spouse maintenance, a sum of $1,000 per week as she may direct in writing with the first such payment to be made within seven days of the date of these Orders.
The husband pay to the wife a sum of $100,000, by way of partial property settlement, within 21 days of the date of these Orders.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Kehoe & Seden has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 7833 of 2018

Ms Kehoe

Applicant

And

Mr Seden

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The proceedings

Ms Kehoe and Mr Seden are parties to litigation in relation to financial issues and parenting of their child X, born in 2018 and currently 17 months of age.
Upon the separation of the parties on 7 December 2017, the wife moved to State B in the United States and began to live in the home of her parents. On 21 March 2018 she commenced proceedings in the District Court of C County ("the State B Court") in relation to parenting and child support issues. On 6 December 2018 the wife filed an Initiating Application in the Family Court of Australia, by which she sought orders for alteration of property interests and spouse maintenance. On…

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 KEHOE & SEDEN

Details

AGLC: KEHOE & SEDEN [2019] FamCA 989
Case: [2019] FamCA 989
Decision Date: 13 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Kehoe & Seden*, heard by Stevenson J, the wife sought a partial property settlement of $250,000 and an increase in spousal maintenance, while the husband proposed a property settlement of $50,000. The wife indicated she lacked independent resources to fund her litigation.

The court was required to determine the appropriate quantum for an interim property settlement and interim spousal maintenance, considering the parties' respective financial positions and the wife's needs, including her primary care of a young child and her overseas residence.

Stevenson J ordered the husband to pay the wife $100,000 by way of partial property settlement within 21 days. Additionally, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife $1,000 per week as interim spouse maintenance, with the first payment to be made within seven days of the order.

Orders

Orders of the court

The husband pay to the wife, by way of interim spouse maintenance, a sum of $1,000 per week as she may direct in writing with the first such payment to be made within seven days of the date of these Orders.

The husband pay to the wife a sum of $100,000, by way of partial property settlement, within 21 days of the date of these Orders.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.