Laconi and Cosgrove

Case [2017] FCCA 1179


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LACONI & COSGROVE [2017] FCCA 1179
Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Property – where parties entered into a binding financial agreement post-separation – where husband asserts the proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home are held on constructive trust – where wife seeks declaration of moneys in her sole name – where wife also claims equitable compensation.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.71A, 90B, 90C, 90D, 90J, 90G, 90KA

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), s.5

Cases cited:

Abati & Cole [2015] FamCA 185
Australian Securities and Investment Commission and Rich (2003) FLC 93-171
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Bruinsma v Menczer [1996] NSWSC 8
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 52 ALJR 20
Crafter & Crafter [2011] FamCA 122
Cressy v Johnson (No.3) [2009] VSC 52
Commonwealth of Australia v Crothall Hospital Services (Aust) Ltd [1981] FCA 117; (1981) 36 ALR 567
Donald & Forsyth [2015] FamCAFC 72
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc [2002] HCA 8; 209 CLR 99
Fevia & Carmel- Fevia [2009] FamCA 816
Fitzgerald v Masters (1956) 95 CLR 420
Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd [2009] NSWCA 40
Garvey & Jess [2016] FamCA 445
GEC Marconi Systems Pty Limited v BHP Information Technology Pty Limited [2003] FCA 50; (2003) 128 FCR 1
Handley v Gunner [2008] NSWCA 113; (2008) 13 BPR 25
Hay & Hay [2014] FCCA 775
Hawkins v Clayton (1987) 164 CLR 539
Hibberson v George (1989) 12 FamLR 725
Hill v Hill [2005] NSWSC 863
Kostres v Kostres (2009) 42 FamLR 336; FLC 93-420
Kriezis v Kriezis [2004] NSWSC 167
Lloyd v Tedesco [2002] WASCA 63

McKay v McKay [2008] NSWSC 177
Miller v Sutherland (1990) 14 FamLR 416
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583
Parij v Parij (1997) 72 SASR 153
Parke & Parke [2015] FCCA 1692
Phillips v Ellison Bros Pty Ltd (1941) 65 CLR 221
Raulfs v Fishy Bite Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 135
Ruane Backman-Ruane and Anor [2009] FamCA 1101
Sanger & Sanger (2011) 46 Fam LR 275
Shepherd v Doolan [2005] NSWSC 42
Sprott v Harper [2000] QCA 391
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Summers v The Commonwealth (1918) 25 CLR 144
Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd v Nathan's Merchandise (Victoria) Pty Ltd 1957] HCA 10; (1957) 98 CLR 93
Valceski v Valceski [2007] NSWSC 440; 70 NSWLR 36
Wallera Pty Ltd v CGM Investments Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 279
West v Mead (2003) 13 BPR 24

Zaruba & Zaruba [2017] FamCAFC 91

Applicant: MR LACONI
Respondent: MS COSGROVE
File Number: SYC 7837 of 2015
Judgment of: Judge Harper
Hearing dates: 13 & 14 March 2017
Date of Last Submission: 14 March 2017
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 2 June 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Evans
Solicitors for the Applicant: Whitfields Solicitors
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Stevens and Mr Chen
Solicitors for the Respondent: Lincoln Smith and Company

THE…

Continue reading Laconi and Cosgrove

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Laconi and Cosgrove [2017] FCCA 1179
Case
[2017] FCCA 1179
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Laconi and Cosgrove*, heard by Judge Harper, the dispute concerned claims made by the husband and a cross-claim by the wife. The specific nature of these claims and cross-claims is not detailed in the provided text, but the outcome indicates they were ultimately unsuccessful.

The court was required to determine whether the husband's Amended Statement of Claim and the wife's Amended Cross-Claim should be upheld or dismissed. The central legal issue was the validity and merits of the claims and counter-claims presented by each party.

Judge Harper ordered the dismissal of the husband's Amended Statement of Claim and, with one exception not specified, the dismissal of the wife's Amended Cross-Claim. The court also stipulated that any party seeking costs must make a written application within 28 days, failing which no order as to costs would be made. Any costs applications would be determined by written submissions unless oral hearings were requested.

Orders

Orders of the court

2.

The husband’s Amended Statement of Claim be dismissed.

3.

The wife’s Amended Cross-Claim, otherwise, be dismissed.

4.

If any party seeks an order for costs, an appropriate written application may be made within 28 days of today’s date (supported by any documentary material) to be filed and served within that time period and a copy forwarded to my Chambers. If no such application is made within the time period specified, no order will be made as to costs.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

5.

Any application as to costs will be dealt with by way of written submissions, unless the parties request to be heard orally.

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.