Krupin & Krupin (No 3) - [2024] FedCFamC1F 61

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Krupin & Krupin (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 61

File number(s): BRC 5459 of 2014

Judgment of: HOWARD J

Date of judgment: 14 February 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – ADDENDUM – Correction of the Reasons for Judgment pursuant to r 10.14(b) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Variation of reasons where the trial judge is not functus officio – Where the variation made is not inconsistent with the Reasons for Judgment originally issued and does not alter the substance of the original reasons.

Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 10.14.

Cases cited:
Bromley v Bromley [1965] P111

Carroll v Price (1960) VR651

In the marriage of Swaney & Ward (1988) FLC 91-928

Pittalls And Others v Sherefettin (1986) QB 868

R v Jones; R v Hilli (No 2) (2010) 79 NSWLR 143

Smith v New South Wales Bar Association (No 2) (1992) 176 CLR 256

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 6

Date of hearing: 14 March 2024

Place: Brisbane

Counsel for the applicant: Mr Waterman

Solicitor for the applicant: Hofstee Lawyers

Counsel for the first respondent: Mr Jones

Solicitor for the first respondent: Robert Bax & Associates

Counsel for the second respondent: Mr Hartnett

Solicitor for the second respondent: Genuine Legal

Third and Fourth Respondents: Litigants in person
ORDERS

BRC 5459 of 2014

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MR KRUPIN

Applicant

AND:
MS KRUPIN

First Respondent

MS ANGELOFF

Second Respondent

MS PETROV

Third Respondent

B PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

HOWARD J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 FEBRUARY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to r 10.14(b) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), the Reasons for Judgment are amended to delete the reference to “all the parties” in paragraph 157 and to change the reference to “the parties to the s 79 property settlement proceedings, namely [Mr Krupin] and [Ms Krupin] (note Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 7)”.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
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 by this Court under the pseudonym Krupin & Krupin has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Howard J

This matter proceeded to trial in May…

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 Krupin & Krupin (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Krupin & Krupin (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 61
Case: [2024] FedCFamC1F 61
Decision Date: 14 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case, Krupin & Krupin (No 3), involves Mr Krupin as the applicant, Ms Krupin as the first respondent, Ms Angeloff as the second respondent, Ms Petrov as the third respondent, and B Pty Ltd as the fourth respondent. The matter pertains to a family law dispute, specifically regarding the correction of the reasons for judgment under rule 10.14(b) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021. The case was heard by Howard J in Division 1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the trial judge could amend the reasons for judgment after the original decision had been issued, and if such amendment was permissible without altering the substance of the original judgment. The court considered whether the amendment was consistent with the original reasons and did not change the fundamental outcomes or the legal positions of the parties involved.

Howard J determined that the trial judge was not functus officio (i.e., unable to act further in the matter) when making the amendment. The court held that the variation made to the reasons for judgment was not inconsistent with the original reasons and did not alter the substance of the original judgment. Therefore, the court ruled that the amendment was appropriate and necessary for the accurate recording of the proceedings.

The final order was to amend the reasons for judgment by deleting a specific reference in paragraph 157 and correcting another reference to accurately reflect the parties involved in the property settlement proceedings. This amendment was intended to ensure the record of the court’s proceedings was accurate and consistent with the evidence presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

BRC 5459 of 2014

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MR KRUPIN

Applicant

AND:

MS KRUPIN

First Respondent

MS ANGELOFF

Second Respondent

MS PETROV

Third Respondent

B PTY LTD

Fourth Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

HOWARD J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 FEBRUARY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Pursuant to r 10.14(b) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), the Reasons for Judgment are amended to delete the reference to “all the parties” in paragraph 157 and to change the reference to “the parties to the s 79 property settlement proceedings, namely [Mr Krupin] and [Ms Krupin] (note Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 7)”.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

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.

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.

File number(s):	BRC 5459 of 2014
Judgment of:	HOWARD J
Date of judgment:	14 February 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – ADDENDUM – Correction of the Reasons for Judgment pursuant to r 10.14(b) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Variation of reasons where the trial judge is not functus officio – Where the variation made is not inconsistent with the Reasons for Judgment originally issued and does not alter the substance of the original reasons.
Legislation:	Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 10.14.
Cases cited:	Bromley v Bromley [1965] P111 Carroll v Price (1960) VR651 In the marriage of Swaney & Ward (1988) FLC 91-928 Pittalls And Others v Sherefettin (1986) QB 868 R v Jones; R v Hilli (No 2) (2010) 79 NSWLR 143 Smith v New South Wales Bar Association (No 2) (1992) 176 CLR 256
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	6
Date of hearing:	14 March 2024
Place:	Brisbane
Counsel for the applicant:	Mr Waterman
Solicitor for the applicant:	Hofstee Lawyers
Counsel for the first respondent:	Mr Jones
Solicitor for the first respondent:	Robert Bax & Associates
Counsel for the second respondent:	Mr Hartnett
Solicitor for the second respondent:	Genuine Legal
Third and Fourth Respondents:	Litigants in person

BRC 5459 of 2014
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MR KRUPIN Applicant
AND:	MS KRUPIN First Respondent MS ANGELOFF Second Respondent MS PETROV Third Respondent B PTY LTD Fourth Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	HOWARD J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 FEBRUARY 2024