Kendrick and Barnwell

[2019] FamCA 603

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KENDRICK & BARNWELL [2019] FamCA 603

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where final judgment is reserved – Where an application is made to re-open property proceedings – Where the husband sold a property owned by him that was included in the property interests of the parties and the sale price is greater than that attributed to it in the joint balance sheet of the parties at the end of the trial – Where the interests of justice will not be better served by granting leave to re-open the case – Where the application is dismissed and no order is made for costs.

Income Assessment Act 1997 (Cth)

EB v CT (No. 2) [2008] QSC 306
Rennie & Rennie [2017] FamCA 329
Smith v NSW Bar Association (1992) 176 CLR 256;
Summitt & Summitt and Ors (Re-opening) [2009] FamCA 365
Urban Transport Authority of NSW v Nweiser (1992) 28 NSWLR 471

APPLICANT: Mr Kendrick

RESPONDENT: Ms Barnwell

FILE NUMBER: BRC 2650 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 28 August 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Forrest J

HEARING DATE: 22 August 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Kirk QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Hirst & Co Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Dr Brasch QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: O’Reilly & Sochacki Lawyers

Orders

1. That the Application in a Case filed on 23 July 2019 is dismissed.

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 Kendrick & Barnwell 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 BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 2650 of 2016

Mr Kendrick

Applicant

And

Ms Barnwell

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. A trial of a contested application for property adjustment Orders between two parties who were formerly in a de facto relationship took place in this Court over four days in mid-April 2018. Because it did not finish in the four days originally allocated for its hearing, it was adjourned part-heard to conclude over two days in late November 2018. Even then, it did not conclude in those two days, with oral submissions being heard on 5 December 2018. Judgment was reserved at the end of that trial.

2. On 23 July 2019, whilst judgment remained reserved, the Respondent (who I shall, for simplicity of understanding, call “the wife”) to the original application filed an Application in a Case seeking to re-open the proceedings and leave to adduce further evidence in the proceedings.

3. That application was heard by me on Thursday, 22 August 2019.

4. The…