Lacey and Lacey (No.3)
Case
•
[2018] FCCA 1551
•5 October 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Lacey and Lacey (No.3) [2018] FCCA 1551
[2018] FCCA 1551
5 October 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Lacey and Lacey (No.3)*, Judge Terry of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered a dispute between a husband and wife concerning the division of their property. The proceedings involved the transfer of a significant sum of money from the husband, or a company associated with him, to the wife.
The court was required to determine the appropriate orders for the division of the parties' property, specifically addressing the payment of a substantial sum by the husband to the wife and the consequent exclusive ownership of remaining assets.
Judge Terry ordered that the husband pay $2,980,639.28 to the wife's solicitors by 4.00pm on 5 February 2019, or alternatively, ensure that Company A Pty Ltd made this payment. Upon compliance with this order, each party was declared the sole owner of all property and superannuation standing in their respective names or in their possession, to the exclusion of the other.
The court was required to determine the appropriate orders for the division of the parties' property, specifically addressing the payment of a substantial sum by the husband to the wife and the consequent exclusive ownership of remaining assets.
Judge Terry ordered that the husband pay $2,980,639.28 to the wife's solicitors by 4.00pm on 5 February 2019, or alternatively, ensure that Company A Pty Ltd made this payment. Upon compliance with this order, each party was declared the sole owner of all property and superannuation standing in their respective names or in their possession, to the exclusion of the other.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Remedies
-
Costs
-
Injunction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Lacey and Lacey (No.3) [2018] FCCA 1551
Most Recent Citation
Lacey and Lacey (No.4) [2019] FCCA 1138
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
2
Singer v Berghouse
[1994] HCA 40
Ascot Investments Pty Ltd v Harper
[1981] HCA 1
Ascot Investments Pty Ltd v Harper
[1981] HCA 44