FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| LESLEY & LESLEY | [2015] FamCA 894 |
| FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – INTERIM PROCEEDINGS – Where the wife sought an interim property settlement of $250 000 – Where the wife sought payment from the husband of her current and future legal costs –Where the husband objected on the basis that he is unable to access funds to satisfy such orders – Where the asset pool is estimated to exceed $10.8 million dollars – Consideration of Bing & Bing (2007) FLC 93-318 – Where the Court finds it just and equitable to make orders as sought by the wife – Where both parties sought injunctions restraining the other from dealing with various entities – Orders made restraining the husband’s dealing with those entities without written notice to the wife, unless in the ordinary course of business. |
FAMILY LAW – CHILD SUPPORT – INTERIM PROCEEDINGS – Where the wife sought a child support departure order – Where the Child Support Registrar had not been served pursuant to the Family Law Rules – Where the wife had not utilised the administrative mechanisms available through the Child Support Agency – Where the wife had not established that there are special circumstances to justify such an order – Application dismissed.
| Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) s 116, 117, 145 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 4.16, 4.23 |
| Acton & Burton [2015] FamCA 469 Bell & Bell [2000] FamCA 1301 Bing & Bing (2007) FLC 93-318 Child Support Registrar & Nixon (2007) 36 Fam LR 571 In the Marriage of Gyselman (1992) FLC 92-279 Iphostrou & Iphostrou and Ors [2011] FamCA 20 Kelleher & Anderson [2007] FamCA 137 Magnus & Magnus [2015] FamCA 429 Sieling and Sieling (1979) FLC 90-627 Strahan & Strahan(Interim Property Orders) (2011) FLC 93-466 Vincent & Vincent [2013] FamCA 425 Yeh & Jyu [2014] FamCA 162 Yewen & Child Support Registrar & Anor [2014] FCCA 2399 |
| APPLICANT: | Mr Lesley |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Lesley |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 1313 | of | 2015 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 23 October 2015 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | McClelland J |
| HEARING DATE: | 20 August 2015 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr Blackah |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Caroline Chung & Associates |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr White SC |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Michael Conley Lawyers |
Orders
THE COURT ORDERS, PENDING FURTHER ORDER, THAT:
Within two (2) months of the date of these Orders, the husband is to pay to the wife the sum of $250 000 by way of interim property settlement.
Within three (3) months of the date of these Orders, the husband is to pay into the wife’s solicitor’s trust account, the amount of $297 430 for the payment of the wife’s current and future legal costs in relation to these proceedings.
Unless it is in the ordinary course of business, the husband shall give at least fourteen (14) days’ written notice to the wife of:
(a)any proposal to sell, mortgage, charge or…
Continue reading Lesley & Lesley
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lesley & Lesley [2015] FamCA 894
- Case
- [2015] FamCA 894
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine the appropriate interim property settlement sum, the quantum of funds to be paid for the wife's legal costs, and to make orders regarding the management and valuation of assets. Additionally, the court considered an application by the wife for a child support departure order.
McClelland J ordered the husband to pay $250,000 to the wife by way of interim property settlement and $297,430 into the wife's solicitor's trust account for her legal costs. The court also imposed restrictions on the husband's ability to deal with certain assets, requiring him to provide written notice to the wife of any proposed sale, mortgage, charge, or encumbrance of assets held solely or jointly, as well as assets of specified companies and a family trust. Orders were also made concerning the maintenance of health fund membership and the execution of letters of instruction for property valuations. The wife's application for a child support departure order was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
THE COURT ORDERS, PENDING FURTHER ORDER, THAT:
1.
Within two (2) months of the date of these Orders, the husband is to pay to the wife the sum of $250 000 by way of interim property settlement.
2.
Within three (3) months of the date of these Orders, the husband is to pay into the wife’s solicitor’s trust account, the amount of $297 430 for the payment of the wife’s current and future legal costs in relation to these proceedings.
3.
Unless it is in the ordinary course of business, the husband shall give at least fourteen (14) days’ written notice to the wife of:
(a) any proposal to sell, mortgage, charge or encumber any assets held either solely or jointly with the wife; and
(b) any proposal to sell, mortgage, charge or encumber any assets of the following entities:
(i) B Pty Ltd;
(ii) C Pty Ltd;
(iii) D Pty Ltd;
(iv) Lesley Family Trust;
(v) E Pty Ltd;
(vi) F Pty Ltd; and
(vii) G Pty Ltd.
4.
The wife is to maintain the existing family health fund membership with the H Health Fund and, for the avoidance of doubt, is to ensure that the husband remains a member of that fund.
5.
In the event it has not already occurred, within seven (7) days of the date of these Orders, the husband is to cause the joint letters of instruction to I Valuers and to Mr J (“the Valuers”) to be executed and sent to those Valuers, together with the supporting documentation, and failing which, the wife is to cause her solicitors to forward those letters of instruction to the Valuers.
6.
In the event it has not already occurred, within seven (7) days of the date of these Orders, the husband is to confirm in writing his nomination of K Appraisals to value the parties’ City L properties and is to cause the joint letter of instruction to be executed and sent to that Valuer, and failing which, the wife is to cause her solicitors to forward the letter of instruction to that Valuer.
7.
The wife’s application for a child support departure order, pursuant to s 117 of Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth), is dismissed.
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.