Krishna and Suk and Anor - [2019] FamCA 794

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KRISHNA & SUK AND ANOR

[2019] FamCA 794

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for the de facto spouse to intervene in proceedings between a husband and wife – Where the applicant was not required in those proceedings in order for her interests to be protected – Application dismissed – Where the applicant’s initiating application is to be listed on the date final orders are made between the husband and wife.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 92.

APPLICANT:

Ms Krishna

RESPONDENT:

Ms Suk

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Mr Fulham

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

6579

2011

DATE DELIVERED:

30 October 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Rees J

HEARING DATE:

30 October 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Breeze

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

FKG Law

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Blanchfield Nicholls

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT:

Crawford Ryan Lawyers Pty Ltd

Orders

IT IS ORDERED

That the Application in a Case filed by the de facto spouse, Ms Krishna, on 21 October 2019 seeking to be joined as a party to proceedings between Ms Suk and Mr Fulham be dismissed.
That the applicant de facto spouse, Ms Krishna, file and serve upon Mr Fulham an Initiating Application setting out the orders which she seeks upon a final and interim (if applicable) basis on or before 22 November 2019.
That the Initiating Application referred to in Order 2 be adjourned to the date upon which final orders are made in suit no. SYC6579/2011.
That upon the making of final orders in suit no. SYC6579/2011, the applicant de facto spouse be at liberty to make such application as she may wish to the Court as to further orders in the proceedings referred to in Order 2.

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 Krishna & Suk and Anor 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 6579 of 2011

Ms Krishna

Applicant

And

Ms Suk

Respondent

Mr Fulham
Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ms Suk (“the first respondent”) and Mr Fulham (“the second respondent”) separated in July 2011 and commenced proceedings in relation to their financial affairs in 2013.
Those proceedings are listed for final hearing for three days commencing on 25 November 2019.
On 21 October 2019, Ms Krishna (“the applicant”) filed an application to intervene in those proceedings.
The applicant asserts that she and the second respondent lived in a de facto relationship from late 2012 until they separated on 9…

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 Krishna and Suk and Anor

Details

AGLC: Krishna and Suk and Anor [2019] FamCA 794
Case: [2019] FamCA 794
Decision Date: 30 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Krishna and Suk and Anor*, heard by Rees J, the dispute concerned an application by Ms Krishna, the de facto spouse of Mr Fulham, to be joined as a party to existing proceedings between Ms Suk and Mr Fulham. Ms Krishna filed her application on 21 October 2019.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Ms Krishna should be permitted to join the existing proceedings as a party. This involved considering the nature of her interest in the proceedings and the potential impact of her joinder on the existing litigation.

Rees J dismissed Ms Krishna's application to be joined as a party. However, the court made orders allowing Ms Krishna to file an Initiating Application outlining the orders she sought, both finally and, if applicable, on an interim basis, by 22 November 2019. This application was to be adjourned to await the final orders in suit no. SYC6579/2011. Upon the making of those final orders, Ms Krishna would be at liberty to make further applications to the court regarding the proceedings initiated by her.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS ORDERED

That the Application in a Case filed by the de facto spouse, Ms Krishna, on 21 October 2019 seeking to be joined as a party to proceedings between Ms Suk and Mr Fulham be dismissed.

That the applicant de facto spouse, Ms Krishna, file and serve upon Mr Fulham an Initiating Application setting out the orders which she seeks upon a final and interim (if applicable) basis on or before 22 November 2019.

That the Initiating Application referred to in Order 2 be adjourned to the date upon which final orders are made in suit no. SYC6579/2011.

That upon the making of final orders in suit no. SYC6579/2011, the applicant de facto spouse be at liberty to make such application as she may wish to the Court as to further orders in the proceedings referred to in Order 2.

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.