Lahiri & Saha (No 9) - [2024] FedCFamC1F 67

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Lahiri & Saha (No 9) [2024] FedCFamC1F 67

File number(s): BRC 8518 of 2020

Judgment of: JARRETT J

Date of judgment: 15 February 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Evidence insufficient to identify parties’ interests in property – Where parties have repeatedly failed to rectify state of the evidence – All outstanding applications dismissed

Legislation:
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 302A

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 203B, 206B(3)

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 81, 90XD, 90XS(1)

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth)

Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997 (Cth)

Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) s 10

Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 (Cth)

Cases cited: Lahiri & Saha (No 6) [2023] FedCFamC1F 797

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 24

Date of hearing: 9 February 2024

Place: Brisbane

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Cahill

Solicitors for the Applicant: AP Hodgson

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Leneham

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Sharma Lawyers

Solicitors for the Second Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors for the Third Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors for the Fourth Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors for the Fifth Respondent: No appearance
ORDERS

BRC 8518 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MR LAHIRI

Applicant

AND:
MS SAHA

First Respondent

MR FELTOS

Second Respondent

D PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE D PTY LTD SUPERANNUATION FUND (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JARRETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 FEBRUARY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The amended application filed on 4 September, 2023 is dismissed.
2.Otherwise all outstanding applications and responses are dismissed.

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 a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JARRETT J:

On the last occasion this application was before me I attempted to complete the final hearing of the remainder of the property adjustment application concerning the parties’ superannuation interests. For reasons that I delivered then (see Lahiri & Saha (No 6) [2023] FedCFamC1F 797) I was unable to do so. I sought further submissions from each of the parties in relation to particular matters about which I required assistance.
The applicant delivered his submissions on 1 November, 2023. They are unhelpful. Apart from reciting the…

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 Lahiri & Saha (No 9)

Details

AGLC: Lahiri & Saha (No 9) [2024] FedCFamC1F 67
Case: [2024] FedCFamC1F 67
Decision Date: 15 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Lahiri & Saha (No 9) involved the applicant, Mr Lahiri, and the first respondent, Ms Saha. The dispute centered around property and their respective interests in it. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1). The court had to decide on various outstanding applications and responses, considering the parties’ failure to provide sufficient evidence to clarify their interests in the property. This was not the first time the court had to address the insufficiency of evidence, as the parties had repeatedly failed to rectify the state of the evidence in previous proceedings.

The court examined the history of the case and the ongoing failure of the parties to provide adequate evidence. It was noted that the lack of clear and comprehensive evidence hindered the court's ability to determine the parties' interests in the property. The court also highlighted the repeated opportunities given to the parties to rectify this situation. Given these circumstances, the court concluded that the evidence was still insufficient to identify the parties' interests in the property. Consequently, the court dismissed all outstanding applications and responses. The court’s reasoning was grounded in the need for clear evidence to proceed with the property dispute, and the parties' persistent failure to provide such evidence.

The court's final orders were clear and definitive. The amended application filed on 4 September 2023 was dismissed. Additionally, all other outstanding applications and responses were also dismissed. This outcome reflects the court's commitment to ensuring that family law proceedings are conducted with the necessary clarity and evidence. The dismissal of all outstanding applications signals a firm stance on the requirement for proper evidence in such cases. The court’s decision underscores the importance of parties providing sufficient evidence to resolve property disputes in family law matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

BRC 8518 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MR LAHIRI

Applicant

AND:

MS SAHA

First Respondent

MR FELTOS

Second Respondent

D PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE D PTY LTD SUPERANNUATION FUND (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JARRETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 FEBRUARY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The amended application filed on 4 September, 2023 is dismissed.

2. Otherwise all outstanding applications and responses are dismissed.

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 8518 of 2020
Judgment of:	JARRETT J
Date of judgment:	15 February 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Evidence insufficient to identify parties’ interests in property – Where parties have repeatedly failed to rectify state of the evidence – All outstanding applications dismissed
Legislation:	Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 302A Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 203B, 206B(3) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 81, 90XD, 90XS(1) Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997 (Cth) Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) s 10 Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 (Cth)
Cases cited:	Lahiri & Saha (No 6) [2023] FedCFamC1F 797
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	24
Date of hearing:	9 February 2024
Place:	Brisbane
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Cahill
Solicitors for the Applicant:	AP Hodgson
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr Leneham
Solicitors for the First Respondent:	Sharma Lawyers
Solicitors for the Second Respondent:	No appearance
Solicitors for the Third Respondent:	No appearance
Solicitors for the Fourth Respondent:	No appearance
Solicitors for the Fifth Respondent:	No appearance

BRC 8518 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MR LAHIRI Applicant
AND:	MS SAHA First Respondent MR FELTOS Second Respondent D PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE D PTY LTD SUPERANNUATION FUND (and others named in the Schedule) Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JARRETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	15 FEBRUARY 2024