Lucic & Lucic - [2025] FedCFamC1F 205

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Lucic & Lucic [2025] FedCFamC1F 205

File number: SYC 7281 of 2023

Judgment of: HARPER J

Date of judgment: 24 March 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – INJUNCTIONS – Where the wife seeks fresh injunctive relief against the husband – Where the wife seeks 14 days’ notice be given by the husband for modest transactions from personal and other bank accounts – Where the wife claimed there were deficiencies in the husband’s disclosure – Where an alleged deficit arose because of insufficient attention given by the wife to disclosed documents – Where there are existing injunctive orders in place – Where the proposed order by the wife is unnecessarily onerous – Where risk of dissipation of assets by the husband not clearly demonstrated – Where the wife does not establish on the balance of convenience that the injunctive relief sought should be imposed – No orders made for injunctive relief.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 95, 114

Cases cited:
Agnarsson & Agnarsson (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC1F 407

Bevan & Bevan (2013) FLC 93-545; [2013] FamCAFC 116

Duarte v Morse (2019) 59 Fam LR 323; [2019] FamCAFC 93

Julien & Perrin (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 50

Lin & Ruan (2021) FLC 94-024; [2021] FamCAFC 90

Sarto & Sarto (2022) 65 Fam LR 605; [2022] FedCFamC1A 16

Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108; [2012] HCA 52

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 21

Date of hearing: 24 March 2025

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Auld

Solicitor for the Applicant: Dennis Paltos Family Lawyer

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Fisken

Solicitor for the Respondent: Barkus Doolan Winning
ORDERS

SYC 7281 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MS LUCIC

Applicant

AND:
MR LUCIC

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

HARPER J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 MARCH 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The respondent husband file a Financial Statement within 28 days of the date of these orders.
2.The Application in a Proceeding filed 17 December 2024 and the Response thereto be otherwise dismissed.
3.The question of costs is reserved.

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).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of 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 the pseudonyms Lucic & Lucic have been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

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 Lucic & Lucic

Details

AGLC: Lucic & Lucic [2025] FedCFamC1F 205
Case: [2025] FedCFamC1F 205
Decision Date: 24 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Lucic applied for injunctive relief against Mr Lucic, seeking a court order for him to provide her with 14 days' notice of any withdrawals from their personal and other bank accounts. The application was heard ex tempore in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The court was required to determine whether the wife had established the balance of convenience in favour of granting the injunctive relief sought.

The court found that the proposed order was unnecessarily onerous given the existing injunctive orders in place. The court also found that the wife had not clearly demonstrated a risk of dissipation of assets by the husband and had not established on the balance of convenience that the injunctive relief sought should be imposed. The court held that the wife had not discharged the onus of establishing that the injunctive relief sought should be imposed.

The court dismissed the wife's application in its entirety, including the application for injunctive relief, and ordered that Mr Lucic file a Financial Statement within 28 days of the date of the order. The court reserved the question of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 7281 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MS LUCIC

Applicant

AND:

MR LUCIC

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

HARPER J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 MARCH 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondent husband file a Financial Statement within 28 days of the date of these orders.

2. The Application in a Proceeding filed 17 December 2024 and the Response thereto be otherwise dismissed.

3. The question of costs is reserved.

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).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of 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:	SYC 7281 of 2023
Judgment of:	HARPER J
Date of judgment:	24 March 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – INJUNCTIONS – Where the wife seeks fresh injunctive relief against the husband – Where the wife seeks 14 days’ notice be given by the husband for modest transactions from personal and other bank accounts – Where the wife claimed there were deficiencies in the husband’s disclosure – Where an alleged deficit arose because of insufficient attention given by the wife to disclosed documents – Where there are existing injunctive orders in place – Where the proposed order by the wife is unnecessarily onerous – Where risk of dissipation of assets by the husband not clearly demonstrated – Where the wife does not establish on the balance of convenience that the injunctive relief sought should be imposed – No orders made for injunctive relief.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 95, 114
Cases cited:	Agnarsson & Agnarsson (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC1F 407 Bevan & Bevan (2013) FLC 93-545; [2013] FamCAFC 116 Duarte v Morse (2019) 59 Fam LR 323; [2019] FamCAFC 93 Julien & Perrin (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 50 Lin & Ruan (2021) FLC 94-024; [2021] FamCAFC 90 Sarto & Sarto (2022) 65 Fam LR 605; [2022] FedCFamC1A 16 Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108; [2012] HCA 52
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	21
Date of hearing:	24 March 2025
Place:	Sydney
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Auld
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Dennis Paltos Family Lawyer
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Fisken
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Barkus Doolan Winning

SYC 7281 of 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MS LUCIC Applicant
AND:	MR LUCIC Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	HARPER J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 MARCH 2025