Kerferd & Kerferd

[2021] FCCA 1206

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kerferd & Kerferd [2021] FCCA 1206

File number(s):

DUC 167 of 2016

Judgment of:

JUDGE NEWBRUN

Date of judgment:

28 May 2021

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – proceedings transferred to the Family Court of Australia – Order made

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 s 39
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 r 8.02

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 75(2)

Cases cited:

Morris & Rosetti [2017] FamCA 249

Number of paragraphs:

15

Date of last submission/s:

28 May 2021

Date of hearing:

28 May 2021

Place:

Parramatta

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Mr Marhinin

The Respondent appeared in person

ORDERS

DUC 167 of 2016

BETWEEN:

MR KERFERD

Applicant

AND:

MS KERFERD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE NEWBRUN
DATE OF ORDER:	28 MAY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.These property proceedings are forthwith transferred to the Parramatta Registry of the Family Court of Australia.

2.The proceedings are listed for First Return in the Parramatta Registry of the Family Court of Australia on 3 June 2021 at 10:15am.

NOTATION:

A.The Court will shortly provide brief reasons in relation to the above Transfer Order.

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE NEWBRUN:

INTRODUCTION

1. The within Reasons for Judgment relate to this Court’s Order of 28 May 2021 that these property proceedings be transferred to the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta.

2. Information was provided by the parties to the Court on 28 May 2021, such that it is now clear that these proceedings are, inter alia, unlikely to be completed within four days of Final Hearing, and also are complex.

3. The Wife is legally unrepresented. The Court would assess that the Wife is unlikely to obtain legal representation prior to a Final Hearing. The Husband has legal representation. 

4. The Husband, at a final property hearing, proposes to give evidence himself, and call at least 4 lay witnesses. These witnesses are the directors of four private corporations allegedly controlled by the Husband. These private corporations carry on various businesses. The Wife proposes to give evidence herself, and at least call a forensic accountant to give evidence.

   ISSUES IN DISPUTE

5. The issues in dispute include the following:

   (a)Whether the Husband has provided fulsome financial disclosure relating to, inter alia, four private corporations of which he allegedly controls. In this context, there is likely to be significant cross examination of the parties and their witnesses in relation to, inter alia, the alleged past business expenses, income and withdrawals of monies of and from these companies;

   (b)The value of the above private corporations. In this context, the Husband will contend that these corporations are not a financial resource available to him;

   (c)The nature and extent…