Ling and Ci

[2009] FamCA 94

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LING & CI [2009] FamCA 94

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Consent orders

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Ling

RESPONDENT: Mr Ci

FILE NUMBER: DGF 368 of 2003

DATE DELIVERED: 9 February 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 9 February 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr R.K. Davis

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Waters Timms Pty Ltd

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr D.E. Whitchurch

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Rose Lawyers

Orders

1. All proceedings be otherwise dismissed and removed from the list of cases awaiting hearing.

2. The reasons for judgment this day be transcribed, placed on the file and be made available to the parties.

3. Otherwise, make orders in terms of the minutes marked as exhibit A and direct that the minute remain on the court file.

4. All material produced pursuant to any subpoenae be forthwith returned to the recipient of the subpoena.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Ling & Ci is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER:  DGF 368 of 2003

MS LING

Applicant

And

MR CI

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is the return of the proceedings between the parties in relation to both property settlement and child support.  As Mr Davis correctly points out, the parties have been negotiating for days to get to this result.

2. I have had the benefit of reading the entire file and can see why there is a difficulty.  On the basis of a pool of about $5.5 million and the way the settlement is structured, it is clear that this is very close to an equal division of the assets.

3. Having read the material and taking into account the affidavit material of the parties concerning both contribution and future issues, I am satisfied that the property orders are just and equitable.

4. The wife under these orders is to receive $30,000 by way of a lump sum payment of child support pursuant to section 124 of the Child Support Assessment Act 1989. That particular provision is the substitution provision which effectively means that there would be no periodic payment under the normal formula. Because of the fact that the wife is in receipt of Newstart allowance which is an income-tested benefit, the provisions of section 126 of the act require that before I make an order under section 124, I give reasons why it is appropriate for the court to depart from the periodic assessment under the act.

5. In this case, had an assessment been undertaken, according to Mr Davis - and it is not disputed by Mr Whitchurch - it is likely that the end result would have been that it would have been an assessment for less than $15,000 per annum and on that basis, I am told that it is at the top end of the range.  In those circumstances, having regard to the fact that the object of section 126 is to protect the public purse, I am satisfied that it is appropriate in the circumstances to make the orders.

I certify that the preceding Five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin

Associate: 

Date:  18 February 2009