Konitza and Konitza (No. 2)

Case [2009] FamCAFC 213


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KONITZA & KONITZA (NO. 2) [2009] FamCAFC 213
FAMILY LAW– PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – FULL COURT RE-EXERCISE TRIAL JUDGE’S DISCRETION – APPLICATION OF LAW – Wife deceased prior to determination of proceedings – Appeal allowed for reasons previously published – Full Court able to re-exercise trial Judge’s discretion – Court of the opinion that contribution based entitlements of parties to the date of trial should be seen as equal and appropriate that if do so husband and wife receive 50/50 division of the net property pool
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Section 75(2)
Fisher v Fisher(No. 2) (1986) 161 CLR 438: (1986) FLC 91-767
APPELLANT: G KONITZA as Legal Personal Representative of Mrs KONITZA (Deceased)
RESPONDENT: Mr KONITZA
FILE NUMBER: PTW 3281 of 2006
APPEAL NUMBER: WA 10 of 2009
DATE DELIVERED: 22 October 2009
PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane
PLACE HEARD: Perth
JUDGMENT OF: Bryant CJ, Coleman & May JJ
HEARING DATE: 30 June 2009
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Family Court of Western Australia
LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: 8 May 2009
LOWER COURT MNC: [2009] FCWA 55

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Dr Ingleby with Mr Davies
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: O'Sullivan Davies
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Dowding SC with Ms Taylor
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Carr & Co

Orders

  1. That the appeal be allowed.

  2. That order 1(a) of the orders of 8 May 2009 be varied in part by the further order that the husband pay the sum of $440 533 to the legal personal representative of the wife.

  3. That the cross-appeal be dismissed.

  4. That costs be reserved.

  5. That the appellant file and serve submissions in support of any application for costs or costs certificates within 21 days.

  6. That the respondent file and serve any submissions with respect to costs or costs certificates within 42 days.

  7. That the appellant file and serve any submissions in response to the submissions filed on behalf of the respondent within 56 days.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Konitza & Konitza (No. 2) is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PERTH

Appeal Number: WA 10 of 2009
File Number: PTW 3281 of 2006

G KONITZA as Legal Personal Representative of Mrs KONITZA (Deceased) 

Appellant

And

Mr KONITZA

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SUPPLEMENTARY

  1. On 16 September 2009, for reasons which were then articulated, the Full Court concluded that the wife’s appeal against orders for settlement of property made by the trial judge on 8 May 2009 should be allowed. The cross appeal of the husband against such orders was dismissed.

  2. Subsequent to the delivery of the Court’s judgment, both parties, sensibly in our view, requested the Full Court to re-exercise the trial judge’s discretion. In its judgment of 16 September 2009, the Court expressed the view that there was no apparent impediment to so doing. The Court remained of that view, and made orders varying the trial judge’s…

Continue reading Konitza and Konitza (No. 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Konitza and Konitza (No. 2) [2009] FamCAFC 213
Case
[2009] FamCAFC 213
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The case involved the parties, Konitza and Konitza, who were in dispute over financial matters related to their divorce proceedings. The primary issue was the variation of a previous order that had been made in relation to the financial settlement of the divorce. The husband, the appellant, was seeking to appeal the decision made by the Family Court of Western Australia, which had ordered him to pay a sum of money to the wife. The wife, the respondent, cross-appealed, arguing for a higher amount to be paid to her.

The court was required to determine whether the amount ordered by the Family Court was appropriate and whether the appeal and cross-appeal should be allowed. The court needed to consider the financial circumstances of both parties and the factors relevant to making a fair and reasonable financial order between them. This included assessing the contributions made by each party to the marriage, the needs of the parties post-divorce, and the principle of equal sharing of the matrimonial assets.

In its reasoning, the court found that the amount ordered by the Family Court was insufficient and did not adequately reflect the wife's contributions to the marriage and her needs post-divorce. The court also noted that the husband had not demonstrated that the wife had been over-compensated. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order was varied to increase the amount the husband was required to pay to the wife. The cross-appeal was dismissed as the court found the wife's request for a higher amount was not substantiated. The court reserved the matter of costs and set out a timeline for the parties to file their submissions on costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the appeal be allowed.

2.

That order 1(a) of the orders of 8 May 2009 be varied in part by the further order that the husband pay the sum of $440 533 to the legal personal representative of the wife.

3.

That the cross-appeal be dismissed.

4.

That costs be reserved.

5.

That the appellant file and serve submissions in support of any application for costs or costs certificates within 21 days.

6.

That the respondent file and serve any submissions with respect to costs or costs certificates within 42 days.

7.

That the appellant file and serve any submissions in response to the submissions filed on behalf of the respondent within 56 days.

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.