Lasic & Lasic

[2007] FamCA 837

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LASIC & LASIC [2007] FamCA 837

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – CONSENT ORDERS – Established that consent orders be set aside pursuant to s 79A Family Law Act 1975 allowing trustee of bankrupt estate a share in property of the wife. Ordered that the wife pay the sum directly to a creditor of the husband to prevent defeat of his claim by virtue of costs of the trustee.

DEATH OF A PARTY – Ordered that the parties make further submissions relating to the parties in the circumstances of the death of bankrupt between hearing and publication of judgment.

Family Law Act 1975(Cth) Section 79A

APPLICANT: MR LASIC

RESPONDENT: MRS LASIC

FILE NUMBER: PAF 7534 of 1997

DATE DELIVERED: 17 August 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Coleman J.

HEARING DATE: 16, 17 & 18 July 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr. Durston

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Home Wilkinson Lowry

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr. Foster

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Turner Freeman

Orders

1. That within 28 days Counsel for the applicant file and serve any further submissions in relation to the proceedings.

2. That within 56 days Counsel for the respondent file and serve any further submissions in relation to the proceedings.

3. That within 70 days Counsel for the applicant file any submissions in reply to the submissions of Counsel for the respondent.

4. That the costs of both parties be reserved.

IT IS NOTED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of The Honourable Justice Coleman delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as Lasic & Lasic.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

File Number: PAF7534/1997

MR LASIC

Applicant

And

MRS LASIC

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. By amended application filed 31 March 2005 Mr W (“the trustee”) as trustee of the bankrupt estate of Mr Lasic (“the husband”) sought orders against Mrs Lasic (“the wife”) pursuant to s 79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”).

2. The effect of the relief sought by the trustee was that orders made by consent between the husband and wife in the Family Court on 2 April 1998 be set aside and, in lieu thereof, orders be made the effect of which was, suggested during counsel’s opening of the case, to be to divide the property of the wife equally between the trustee and the wife. The claim on behalf of the trustee was asserted to be worth not less than 25 per cent of such assets.

3. The wife has at all material times resisted any setting aside and/or variation of the consent orders.

4. Subject to the Court’s conclusions with respect to notional add-backs, the net value of the wife’s property approximates $3.6 million. The trustee’s claim is thus, at its highest, for an award of approximately $1.8 million, at its lowest, an award of approximately $900 000.00. These figures delineate the ambit of the dispute: a range of not less than $900 000.00, and as much as $1.8 million.

5. By…