MACNAB & MACNAB
[2015] FCCA 1545
•27 May 2015
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MACNAB & MACNAB | [2015] FCCA 1545 |
| Catchwords: COSTS – Application for costs – whether solicitor-client costs appropriate – where respondent given 21 days to show cause why he should not pay the applicant’s costs. |
| Legislation: Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, rr.13.03C, 22.01 |
| Cases cited: Hickey & Hickey [2003] FamCA 395; (2003) 30 Fam LR 35; FLC 93-143 Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52; (2012) 47 Fam LR 481; FLC 93-518 |
| Applicant: | MS MACNAB |
| Respondent: | MR MACNAB |
| File Number: | MLC 7374 of 2014 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Scarlett |
| Hearing date: | 21 May 2015 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 21 May 2015 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 27 May 2015 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Williams |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Adrian Abrahams Family Lawyers |
| Respondent: | No appearance |
ORDERS
Within 60 days of these Orders the parties are to do the following:
(a)The Respondent Husband is to do all such acts and things and sign all such documents and execute all such instruments as may be required to transfer to the Applicant Wife at the expense of the Wife all of his right, title and interest in the former matrimonial home situate at and known as Property R in the State of Victoria (hereinafter called “the Property R property”) registered in the joint names of the Husband and the Wife;
(b)The Wife is to indemnify the Husband and take all steps reasonably required to cause him to be released and discharged from all liability with regard to the mortgage secured over the Property R property and the Wife is to be responsible for all apportionable rates, taxes and outgoings with respect to the Property R property of whatsoever nature and kind;
(c)The Wife is to do all such acts and things and sign all such documents and execute all such instruments as may be required to transfer to the Husband all her right title and interest in the property situate at and known as Property D in the State of Victoria (hereinafter called the “Property D property”) registered in the joint names of the Husband and the Wife;
(d)The Husband is to indemnify the Wife and take all steps reasonably necessary to cause the Wife to be released and discharged from all liability with regard to the mortgage secured over the Property D property together with all apportionable rates, taxes and outgoings with respect to the Property D property of whatsoever nature and kind.
The Wife is to retain the sum of $80,000 USD from the joint (omitted) Bank (Foreign Exchange) Account No. (omitted).
The Husband is to retain the sum of $22,000 USD from the joint (omitted) Bank (Foreign Exchange) Account No. (omitted).
The Wife is to do all such acts and things and sign all such documents and execute all such instruments as may be required to transfer to the Husband at the expense of the Husband all her right title and interest in the block of land situate at and known as (country omitted property), (country omitted), (hereinafter called “the (country omitted) property”) registered in the joint names of the Husband and the Wife.
The Husband is to indemnify the Wife and take all steps reasonably required to cause the Wife to be released and discharged from all liability with regard to the mortgage secured over the (country omitted) property together with all apportionable rates, taxes and outgoings with respect to the (country omitted) property of whatsoever nature and kind.
In the event that the Husband fails to refinance the Property D property and (country omitted) property within 60 days that the properties are to be sold and the Wife is to be authorised to have the conduct of the sale or sales.
The proceeds of sale are to be applied as follows:
(a)First, to pay all costs, commissions and expenses of the sale;
(b)Second, to discharge any mortgages or encumbrances thereon; and
(c)Third, the balance of the proceeds to be paid to the Husband less any costs to be paid to the Wife to give effect to such sale.
In the event that the Husband fails to transfer or refinance the Property D or (country omitted) properties the Husband is to be liable for the Wife’s costs for his failure to comply.
The parties acknowledge that:
(a)The Husband is to transfer to the Wife his interest in the Mitsubishi Magna motor car currently in the Wife’s possession and the Wife is to be responsible for the registration, insurance, maintenance and running costs of the said car;
(b)The Husband is to retain possession of his Volkswagen motor vehicle.
The Husband is to pay one half of the costs associated with the valuations prepared by the Court Expert namely Mr D of (omitted) Valuers with regard to the Property R and Property D properties in the sum of $2,178.00 being the costs of the valuation.
The husband is to reimburse the Wife the sum of $2,686.00 in arrears for outstanding child support payments.
The Wife is to retain to the exclusion of the Husband all of the furniture, chattels and other items of personalty currently in the Property R property.
The Husband is to retain to the exclusion of the wife all of the furniture, chattels and other items of personalty currently in the Property D property.
The parties are to retain all of their respective superannuation entitlements.
The parties are otherwise to be solely liable for and indemnify each other against any liability encumbering any item of property to which that party is entitled including that each party is to be responsible for all credit card liabilities accruing in their names respectively.
In the event that the Husband fails, refuses or neglects to sign or execute any deed, document or instrument within fourteen (14) days of being requested to do so, then in accordance with section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 the Registrar or a Deputy Registrar of this Court at Melbourne is hereby appointed empowered and directed to sign or execute any such deed, document or instrument on behalf of the Husband upon presentation of such deed, document or instrument and an affidavit of the Legal Practitioner acting on behalf of the Wife as to the Husband’s failure, refusal or neglect.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT
The Application for Adult Child Maintenance for the children of the marriage X born (omitted) 1992 and Y born (omitted) 1996 until such time as they complete their respective qualifications is adjourned to Friday 19 June 2015 at the Melbourne Registry of this Court for further mention at 2:15 pm.
The Applicant Wife is to file and serve an affidavit setting out the facts upon which she relies in support of the above Application for Adult Child Maintenance by Friday 12 June 2015.
The Respondent Husband is to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay the Wife’s costs of these proceedings by filing and serving an affidavit setting out the facts upon which he seeks to rely by Friday 12 June 2015.
The Application for costs is adjourned to Friday 19 June 2015 at the Melbourne Registry of this Court for further mention at 2:15 pm.
The Wife is to forward a sealed copy of these Orders to the Husband at his last known address by ordinary pre-paid post within seven (7) days.
The Husband is advised that if he does not attend Court on the next occasion then Orders may be made in his absence.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym MacNab & MacNab is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT AT SYDNEY |
MLC 7374 of 2014
| MS MACNAB |
Applicant
And
| MR MACNAB |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an Application by the wife for orders for property settlement against the husband. The Application was commenced by means of an Initiating Application and supporting documents filed on 21 August 2014. The Respondent husband has not filed a Response, or an affidavit, or a Financial Statement. On 21 October 2014 Judge O’Sullivan directed that the parties should attend a Conciliation Conference with a Registrar of the Court at 2.15 pm on 10 February 2015. The Respondent did not attend Court on 21 October when those orders were made.
The Respondent did not attend the Conciliation Conference before the Registrar which was eventually conducted on Thursday, 12 February 2015. The learned Registrar noted that the Applicant and her lawyer appeared, but the Respondent did not. The Registrar spoke to the husband by telephone asking why he did not come, and the husband said curiously that the wife’s lawyer asked for things that he did not agree with so he did not see the point of coming to the Court. He agreed that he would pay the lawyer’s costs. The learned Registrar made an order that the husband pay the wife’s costs thrown away in the sum of $800.
Evidence and Submissions
The Application was listed for a final hearing on 21 May 2015. Prior to that time the Applicant had filed an Amended Application, a Financial Statement, and an affidavit of one Mr D, a valuer, and further updating material. On 21 May the Applicant attended Court accompanied by her solicitor, Mr Elsner, and her Counsel, Mr Williams. Mr Williams informed the Court that his client would be relying on the following affidavits.
a)Her affidavit of 5 May 2015;
b)The affidavit of Dr A, a general medical practitioner of 13 May 2015;
c)The affidavit of Dr R, an orthopaedic surgeon of 15 May 2015.
The Respondent, however, did not attend Court. He had not filed any documents even after the Conciliation Conference. His name was called three times outside the Court and he did not appear, nor was there any appearance on his behalf. No message was received by the Court advising that the Respondent had been hindered, delayed or prevented from attending court due to accident, illness, injury or other unforeseen circumstances. The Respondent just did not attend. I made the decision to proceed with the hearing, and the Applicant wife gave oral evidence in the witness box.
Counsel for the Applicant then addressed the Court about the orders that were sought and expressed some misgivings about the precise nature of orders that were sought as to the percentage of the asset pool, which he believed in all circumstances was slightly higher than the Court would find just and equitable. He also pointed to an Application for adult child maintenance for the parties’ two daughters to continue until they had completed their respective qualifications. He indicated that that Application was not ready to proceed, and sought that the Application should be adjourned to a further date. I acceded to that request.
Background
The background to this matter is that the wife was born on (omitted) 1961, and is now aged 53. She is a (omitted) by occupation. The husband was born on (omitted) 1959, and so he is now 55 years of age. He is a (omitted) by occupation. The parties were married on (omitted) 1986 in their native (country omitted). In (omitted) 1987 they moved to Australia and commenced living in Melbourne. On 25 January 2012 the husband left the former matrimonial home at Property R, and went to live at a property at Property D which was an investment property purchased by the parties and which had previously been tenanted.
The parties have not divorced. There are three children of the marriage all of whom are adults. Their eldest daughter, Z, is 26 years of age. Their second daughter, X, is 21 years of age. She continues to reside at the former matrimonial home. She was born on (omitted) 1992. The party’s third daughter, Y, is 18 years of age. She was born on (omitted) 1996. She too continues to reside at the former matrimonial home. There is, as I said, an Application on foot for adult child maintenance in respect of the two younger daughters, X and Y, but that was not pressed at the hearing, and an adjournment was sought, which I granted.
The parties purchased land at Property D in 1992 and borrowed money to build their first home. In 1997 the wife was made redundant by her then employer, (omitted), and received a payout of $44,000 which she used to purchase the land for the former matrimonial home. In 1999 the parties left Property D to live in the former matrimonial home in Property R. The property in Property D was leased and the rental received was applied towards the mortgage repayments.
The wife’s income was applied towards the family’s food and household expenses, and the husband applied his income toward the balance of the mortgage repayments and in payment of utility accounts. By 2008 the parties had paid off the mortgage and had an unencumbered title to the former matrimonial home. In 2009, however, the husband insisted the parties should raise a new mortgage in the sum of $95,000 using the former matrimonial home as security to buy United States dollars which were to be used to build a house in (country omitted) in a block of land that they had purchased outright in 2008.
In ensuing years the wife complains of violence by the husband, and in 2011 she claims that he kicked her in the chest and broke a television set. After the husband kicked her in the chest the wife called the police who attended. Early in 2012 the wife again called the police to come to the former matrimonial home as the husband was making threats and throwing fruit and other items at the wife, and the children were frightened. With the help from the police the wife made an application and obtained intervention orders against the husband on 20 January 2012.
On 25 January the police told the husband to leave the former matrimonial home which he did. Separation, therefore, took place on 25 January 2012 when the husband left the former matrimonial home at Property R and commenced to live at the party’s property in Property D. The husband has paid the mortgage repayment with respect to the Property D property ever since. The wife has been paying the mortgage and the utilities and outgoings for the former matrimonial home in Property R. From 25 January 2012 until 4 June 2014 the husband was making child support payments of $250 per week.
These were not paid through the Child Support Registrar; they were by means of private collection. He ceased making those payments on (omitted) 2014, which was the 18th birthday of the parties’ youngest daughter Y. Early in 2014, the husband agreed to transfer enough money from the foreign exchange account the parties had to pay out the mortgage over the former matrimonial home amounting to approximately $67,000.
On 24 February of that year, the wife’s solicitors wrote to the husband sending him a pre-action procedure letter seeking full and frank disclosure of his financial circumstances. The husband rang the wife after receiving that letter, but informed her that he was not going to discuss any information about his financial circumstances nor would he provide any documents or information. The husband from 4 June 2014 to September of that year made irregular child support payments to the wife. In July of 2014 the wife suffered an injury whilst walking to work. She tore a cartilage in her left leg.
She commenced proceedings at this Court on 21 August 2014. As a result of her injury, the wife was obliged to reduce her hours of work from being a full-time employee to a part-time employee. The husband stopped making child support payments on 24 September 2014. Whilst the wife attended this Court on 21 October 2014, and again in 2015 when the Conciliation Conference took place, the husband did not attend.
There were further incidents between the parties. On 12 February 2015, the day of the Conciliation Conference, the husband rang the parties’ adult daughter X and asked her to speak to the wife, demanding that the wife give him $15,000 from the joint (omitted) Bank foreign exchange account. Later, on 15 February, he came to the former matrimonial home and took X’s car keys. The following day he returned the car keys to X after she kept calling him and pleading with him to take her to work and to university.
In February and in March, there were communications between the husband and the wife directly, and the wife’s solicitors and the husband in respect of orders relating to the appointment of a court expert and the proceedings directly. The wife’s solicitors wrote to a valuer in (country omitted) seeking a valuation of the property in (country omitted). The application came on for hearing at this Court on 21 May. The husband did not attend, and I took the view that the matter should proceed undefended. There was no indication and no reason given as to why the husband did not attend Court.
The proper approach to determination of a property application
When looking at the proper approach to determination of a property application, the way the Court approaches a property application under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is, first of all, to follow the principles set out by the High Court of Australia in Stanford v Stanford[1].
[1] [2012] HCA 52; (2012) 47 Fam LR 481; FLC 93-518
First, the Court must consider the requirement in subsection 79(2) of the Act that prescribes:
The Court shall not make an order under this section unless it is satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is just and equitable to make the order.
The High Court held in Stanford at [37] that the Court must identify the existing legal and equitable interests of the parties in the property. Although section 79 confers a broad power on a Court to make a property settlement order, “it is not a power that is to be exercised according to an unguided judicial discretion” (at [38]).
The third principle, and perhaps the most important is:
Whether making a property settlement order is “just and equitable”" is not to be answered by beginning from the assumption that one or other party has the right to have the property of the parties divided between them or has the right to an interest in marital property which is fixed by reference to the various matters (including financial contributions) set out in subsection 79(4).
Thus the decision in Stanford means that the Court must consider the requirements of subsection 79(2) before embarking on the four step process set out in Hickey & Hickey[2]. In Hickey, the Full Court of the Family Court set out a process of four interrelated steps that must be taken by a Court when determining a property application:
Firstly, the Court should make findings as to the identity and value of the property, liabilities and financial resources of the parties at the date of the hearing. Secondly, the Court should identify and assess the contributions of the parties within the meaning of subsection 79(4) paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and determine the contribution based entitlements of the parties expressed as a percentage of the net value of the property of the parties. Thirdly, the Court should identify and assess the relevant matters (“the other factors”) including the matters referred to in subsection 75(2) so far as they are relevant … Fourthly, the Court should … resolve what order is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case.
[2] [2003] FamCA 395; (2003) 30 Fam LR 35; FLC 93-143
It is neither contrary nor redundant to consider again whether a proposed order is just and equitable under subsection 79(2), because the Court is considering the matter after having undertaken the three previous steps referred to in the Hickey decision.
Consideration
First of all, I consider whether it is just and equitable to make a property order at all. I note from the statement of assets, liabilities and financial resources helpfully provided in the applicant’s case outline document that the assets include three items of real estate, being the properties at Property R and Property D, which are both in joint names, and the property in (country omitted), that is also in joint names.
The property and liabilities of the parties
The parties have cash at the bank. The wife has about $520.00 in her account with the (omitted) Bank. The parties have in joint names in the (omitted) Bank’s foreign exchange account the sum of US$102,000, which is approximately equivalent to AU$133,566.90. The wife has household contents. The total of the net assets comes to $1,041,691.80 less liabilities of $337,376, bringing up a subtotal of $704,315.80. If one adds superannuation to that, the wife has superannuation with a value of $127,829.75, and the husband has superannuation at a value of $140,818, a total of $268,647.75. Thus the figure for the parties’ net assets, including superannuation, is estimated at $972,963.55.
The parties’ contributions
Once the Court has ascertained the assets and liabilities of the parties, the Court must look at the issues of contribution. Initially, the wife has made financial and significant non-financial contributions to the marriage and to the acquisition, improvement and preservation of the properties. The wife has always been the primary carer of the children, including but not limited to taking them to and from school and their various extra-curricular sporting and like activities, cooking their meals, supervising their homework, attending parent-teacher interviews, and scheduling their medical, dental and like appointments.
During the marriage, once the children were of school age, the wife worked in various (occupation omitted) roles, scheduling her work hours around the children’s schooling and other activities as follows: from 1989 to 1998, the wife worked as an (occupation omitted) at (employer omitted). When made redundant from this position in 1997, she received a redundancy package in the sum of approximately $44,000, which she applied towards the acquisition of the land in (omitted) on which the former matrimonial home was built.
From 1998 to 2007, the wife worked as a (omitted) with (employer omitted) four days a week. From 2007 to 2012, the wife worked as a (occupation omitted) with a firm of (employer omitted) three days a week, and also worked one day a week during this period as a (occupation omitted) for (employer omitted). Since separation, the wife has paid the mortgage and like expenses with regard to the former matrimonial home, including rates, taxes, insurances and outgoings and utilities as they fall due, and the husband has paid the mortgage and like expenses with regard to the investment property at Property D.
Previously this property was tenanted, and the rental received was applied in part toward the mortgage repayments, utility and like accounts. Whilst there are no formal arrangements in place with regard to the husband’s time spent with the children, and taking into account that the youngest child is now 18 years of age, the children spend time with their father subject to their wishes but not overnight.
During the marriage, the husband worked as a (occupation omitted), earning approximately $60,000 per year, and his salary has now increased to approximately $100,000 for the last 10 years. The husband worked night shifts and weekends during the marriage, and this put added pressure on the wife in taking care of the children as she did not have any other family living in Australia to assist her. It is submitted by Counsel for the Applicant that the contributions made by the parties during the marriage were otherwise equal; however, since separation in January 2012, the wife has been making all mortgage payments for Property R.
Relevant matters referred to in subsection 75(2)
Turning now to the factors that must be considered under the provisions of subsection 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975, the wife is 53 years old. She is the primary carer of the two children – admittedly adult children – who live at home. She is in fair health. Her leg is in a brace and she is advised that she will have to remain in a brace for the foreseeable future. She is starting to develop osteoarthritis, which will require ongoing physiotherapy and treatment in order to assist in this management.
She experiences discomfort and pain whilst walking and moving around generally. She takes anti-inflammatory medication to assist in managing the pain, and she is required to elevate her leg to reduce the swelling at work and at home. This injury limits her day-to-day work and home activities, and she is currently restricted in attending to all her work and her housework at this time. She has had to reduce her hours of work to part-time in the past, and she may have to do this again in the future as she still needs to undergo an operation to her left leg, requiring more time off work. She can only stand or walk for short periods.
The wife is employed full time with (employer omitted) as a (occupation omitted) and now earns an income of approximately $52,000 per annum, as evidenced by her Financial Statement. She has no savings or other funds upon which to rely. Her only other source of income is the Family Tax Benefit she receives. She has always worked during the marriage and she always used her income for the family and children.
The husband is aged 55 years and he is in good health. He is employed full time and for the last 20 years he has been employed by (employer omitted), now known as (employer omitted). The wife believes he earns an income of more than $100,000 per annum, and he has done so over the last 10 years. The husband has a superannuation fund with (omitted) Super, valued at $140,818. He is no longer paying child support, as the parties’ youngest child, their daughter Y, is now 18 years of age, and this has put added financial pressure on the wife. The wife has incurred legal fees and disbursements.
Orders sought
I look now at the orders sought by the wife. She seeks an order that the husband should transfer to her at her expense all of his right, title and interest in the former matrimonial home at Property R. She would indemnify him in respect of that property. She seeks an order that she transfer to him all her right, title and interest in the property at Property D, in which he is currently residing. He should indemnify the wife in respect of all matters to do with that property.
The wife also seeks an order that she should do all acts and things necessary to transfer to the husband at his expense all of her right, title and interest in the property known as (country omitted property), (country omitted), That property is registered in the joint names of the parties. She would seek an order that the husband indemnify her in respect of all liabilities and outgoings in respect of that property.
She has sought an order that she should retain US$87,000 from the parties’ joint (omitted) Bank Foreign Exchange account, and the husband would retain the other $15,000. She seeks an order that the husband transfer his interest in the Mitsubishi Magna car that she has to her, and she would be responsible for it, and consequently that he should retain the Volkswagen motor vehicle that he has. She seeks an order that the husband should pay half of the costs associated with the valuation prepared by the court expert, Mr D.
Application for adult child maintenance
The wife has sought adult child maintenance for the adult children, X and Y, but does not press that at the hearing, and I propose to adjourn that application until next month so that further information can be obtained. She does seek an order that the husband reimburse her for the sum of $2,686 in arrears for outstanding child support payments. She also seeks an order that the husband should pay her legal costs and disbursements. She has entered into a costs agreement with her current lawyers.
The wife seeks orders that the furniture, chattels and other items in the former matrimonial home be retained by her, and that in the property at Property D be retained by the husband. She does not seek a superannuation splitting order. She seeks an order that the parties should retain their respective superannuation entitlements. Otherwise the parties should be solely liable for and indemnify the other against any liability encumbering any item of property to which that party is entitled, including credit card liabilities.
As I said, Counsel was of the view that the amount that the wife was seeking was slightly higher than justice and equity would require. I have considered that very frank submission by the wife’s Counsel, and I believe that there is merit in it. What must happen, once the Court has considered the parties’ assets and liabilities, contribution issues and subsection 72(2) adjustments, is to, again, consider whether the proposed orders are just and equitable.
Just and equitable
Whilst I am of the view that there should be a percentage adjustment in favour of the wife of up to some 15 per cent, I am also of the view that orders providing that she should receive property to the value of 75 per cent of the net asset pool would be on the high side so as to raise a doubt as to whether such orders were just and equitable.
As Counsel in his submission suggested, the appropriate point of adjustment should be in the cash reserves in American dollars held by the parties in the foreign exchange account in the (omitted) Bank. In order to be satisfied that the proposed orders are just and equitable, I propose to reduce the amount payable to the wife from US$87,000 to 80,000, and to increase correspondingly by US$7,000 the amount to be paid to the husband. That, to my mind, would lead to orders being made between the parties that are just and equitable, and I propose to so order.
Outstanding matters
That leaves two outstanding matters. The adult child maintenance for the children X and Y. There is, at this stage, as Counsel admitted, insufficient evidence as to the children’s needs whilst they are undertaking their study and costs involved leading to a proper order for adult child maintenance.
There is also the question of the wife’s costs. I do believe that the action by the husband in electing to play no role at all in these proceedings has significantly increased the difficulty of the wife in bringing these proceedings. One of the matters under section 117 of the Family Law Act, particularly in subsection 2A, is the conduct of the parties to the proceedings.
It seems to me that the husband’s failure to participate has made the wife’s task more difficult. By comparison, the wife has filed the documents that she was required to do, has taken all of the procedural steps with the aid of her solicitors, and has attended Court whenever she has been required to do so. She attended the Conciliation Conference with her legal advisor. She attended Court for the final hearing and gave oral evidence. I propose to order accordingly.
I might comment in passing, whilst it is not relevant to the costs matter so much, but the wife’s evidence impressed me and she appeared to be a frank and truthful witness. All of these issues lead me to the view – noting, too, that the wife has been almost wholly successful in these proceedings, subject to a minor adjustment in respect of some cash money – there should be an order made that the husband pay the wife’s costs of these proceedings.
It has not been put to the Court that those costs should be paid on anything other than a party and party basis, and I would not see a ground for making any such order in any event. I am of the view that the costs should be assessed according to schedule 1 of the Court’s Rules, with the exception of the fact that I am satisfied that for the hearing before me it was appropriate and necessary for Counsel to be briefed. Insofar as it may be required, I would certify for Counsel under the Rules.
However, even though the husband has elected to remain away from the Court and play no role in these proceedings whatsoever, I would be most reluctant, from the point of view of procedural fairness, to make a costs order without the husband being given the opportunity to make some submissions as to why he should not be required to pay the wife’s costs. I propose to order that he show cause why he should not be ordered to pay those costs by filing and serving and affidavit. He can set out the facts upon which he seeks to rely if he opposes the costs order, but he must file and serve that affidavit on the wife’s solicitors by Friday 12 June.
I propose to consider the issue of costs and the issue of adult child maintenance on the afternoon of Friday 19 June 2015, when I anticipate being in the Melbourne Registry again. This will mean that the wife’s solicitors will need to file and serve an affidavit containing the necessary information relating to the wife’s application for adult child maintenance for the children, X and Y, whilst they obtain their necessary tertiary qualifications.
I certify that the preceding forty-eight (48) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Scarlett
Associate:
Date: 5 June 2015
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
0
2
3