Liprini v Liprini - [2011] FCA 722

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Liprini v Liprini [2011] FCA 722

Citation: Liprini v Liprini [2011] FCA 722

Appeal from: Liprini v Liprini [2011] FMCA 359

Parties: DR ALLAN STEPHEN LIPRINI v KEVIN LIPRINI

File number(s): NSD 735 of 2011

Judge: JACOBSON J

Date of judgment: 22 June 2011

Cases cited: Liprini v Liprini [2011] FMCA 359

Date of hearing: 22 June 2011

Date of last submissions: 22 June 2011

Place: Sydney

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: No Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 8

Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person

Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr D Farrar of Farrar Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 735 of 2011

BETWEEN:
DR ALLAN STEPHEN LIPRINI
Appellant

AND:
KEVIN LIPRINI
Respondent

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 JUNE 2011

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Applicant’s Notice of Motion filed 7 June 2011 seeking a stay of the orders made by Driver FM be dismissed with costs.
2.Leave be granted to the Applicant to file in Court a Notice of Motion amending his Notice of Appeal so as to join Scott Pascoe as a Respondent to the appeal.
3.The Applicant’s Notice of Motion filed in Court on 22 June 2011 seeking leave to amend his Notice of Appeal be allowed

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 735 of 2011

BETWEEN:
DR ALLAN STEPHEN LIPRINI
Appellant

AND:
KEVIN LIPRINI
Respondent

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE:

22 JUNE 2011

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I have before me this morning a Notice of Motion filed by Dr Allan Stephen Liprini seeking a stay of orders made by Driver FM on 17 May 2011: see Liprini v Liprini [2011] FMCA 359. The motion also seeks an order that the stay remain in place pending the determination of Dr Liprini’s appeal from the orders made by Driver FM, matter NSD 735 of 2011.
Federal Magistrate Driver had before him an application seeking an annulment of a bankruptcy arising from a sequestration order made against Dr Liprini by Smith FM on 3 September 2010. For the reasons appearing in Driver FM’s judgment, his Honour refused to annul the bankruptcy. It therefore seems to me that there is nothing which gives rise to any ability on my part to grant a stay of the orders made by Driver FM.
The substance of what Dr Liprini said to me this morning is that he alleges serious matters against the trustee in bankruptcy Mr Pascoe. The statements which Dr Liprini made to me in court repeat the substance of his affidavit of 7 June 2011. As I understand, Mr Farrar, who appears for the trustee this morning, objects to the content of the affidavit. I can well understand 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 Liprini v Liprini

Details

AGLC: Liprini v Liprini [2011] FCA 722
Case: [2011] FCA 722
Decision Date: 22 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, Liprini v Liprini presented a matter involving a dispute between the parties regarding property settlement. The Applicant, seeking a stay of the orders made by Driver FM, filed a Notice of Motion on 7 June 2011. The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and enforcement of the orders made by Family Court Judge Driver, particularly in relation to the distribution of property between the parties. Additionally, the Applicant sought to amend his Notice of Appeal to include Scott Pascoe as a Respondent, given that Pascoe had an interest in the property in question.

The court addressed these issues by first considering whether the Applicant's motion for a stay should be dismissed, which it was, along with an order for costs. The court found that the Applicant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for a stay, as the orders in question were final and binding. Furthermore, the Applicant's request to amend his Notice of Appeal to include Pascoe as a Respondent was allowed. The court reasoned that since Pascoe had an interest in the property, his inclusion in the appeal was necessary for a complete resolution of the matter.

In summary, the court dismissed the Applicant's motion for a stay of the orders, granted leave for the amendment of the Notice of Appeal to include Pascoe, and allowed the Applicant to file the amended Notice of Appeal. This decision ensures that all relevant parties are included in the appeal process, facilitating a fair and comprehensive review of the property settlement orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Applicant’s Notice of Motion filed 7 June 2011 seeking a stay of the orders made by Driver FM be dismissed with costs.

2. Leave be granted to the Applicant to file in Court a Notice of Motion amending his Notice of Appeal so as to join Scott Pascoe as a Respondent to the appeal.

3. The Applicant’s Notice of Motion filed in Court on 22 June 2011 seeking leave to amend his Notice of Appeal be allowed

Note:

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.

Citation:		Liprini v Liprini [2011] FCA 722
Appeal from:		Liprini v Liprini [2011] FMCA 359
Parties:		DR ALLAN STEPHEN LIPRINI v KEVIN LIPRINI
File number(s):		NSD 735 of 2011
Judge:		JACOBSON J
Date of judgment:		22 June 2011
Cases cited:		Liprini v Liprini [2011] FMCA 359
Date of hearing:	22 June 2011
Date of last submissions:	22 June 2011
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	8
Counsel for the Appellant:	The Appellant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mr D Farrar of Farrar Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 735 of 2011

BETWEEN:	DR ALLAN STEPHEN LIPRINI Appellant
AND:	KEVIN LIPRINI Respondent

JUDGE:	JACOBSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 JUNE 2011
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	JACOBSON J
DATE:	22 JUNE 2011
PLACE:	SYDNEY