FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MALONE & MALONE | [2010] FMCAfam 148 |
| FAMILY LAW – Discharge of spousal maintenance arrears – substantial delay in applying for discharge of spousal maintenance – changed circumstances of the parties. |
| Family Law Act 1975, s.83 |
| Applicant: | MR MALONE |
| Respondent: | MS MALONE |
| File Number: | SYC 7311 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Kemp FM |
| Hearing date: | 30 November 2009 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 11 December 2009 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 22 February 2010 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms Friedlander |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Kells the Lawyers |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Maddox |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Slater & Gordon |
ORDERS
That the husband’s application filed on 10 December 2008 and as subsequently amended seeking a reduction in spousal maintenance and the discharge of any arrears of spousal maintenance be dismissed save that any arrears for spousal maintenance accrued during the period following the filing of the husband’s application on 10 December 2008 and the discharge of the subject spousal maintenance order on
4 February 2009 be discharged.
If any party seeks costs, an appropriate application to my chambers may be made within 28 days of today’s date and the Court will deal with that matter by way of written submissions unless the parties wish to be heard orally. If no such application is made within that time period, there will be no order as to costs.
All outstanding applications (save as to costs, including any reserved costs) otherwise be dismissed.
All exhibits tendered in these proceedings, be returned at the expiration of 1 (one) calendar month, unless an appeal is lodged.
The matter be removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Malone & Malone is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYC 7311 of 2008
| MR MALONE |
Applicant
And
| MS MALONE |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an application by the husband filed on 10 December 2008 for orders as follows:‑
(1)That order (9) of the consent orders filed in the Family Court of Australia at Sydney, in proceedings number SY3101 (“the 1992 Family Court orders”), be discharged.
(2)That the spousal maintenance arrears arising from order (9) of the 1992 Family Court orders be discharged.
(3)That a copy of this order be served upon Inland Revenue with respect to spousal maintenance payable for the benefit of the respondent wife.
(4)That the respondent wife pay the applicant husband's costs.
These proposed orders were further amended by a minute of order directed to be filed by the applicant after the conclusion of the hearing and oral submissions. The minute of order, filed on 11 December 2009, is to the following effect:‑
(1)Any arrears of spousal maintenance payable pursuant to the Court order of 4 March 1992 and accrued from 4 March 1992 up to and including the 4 February 2009 (inclusive) be and are hereby discharged.
(2)The rate of spousal maintenance payable…
Continue reading Malone and Malone
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Malone and Malone [2010] FMCAfam 148
- Case
- [2010] FMCAfam 148
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the husband's application for a reduction in spousal maintenance should be granted and if the arrears of spousal maintenance should be discharged. The court had to consider the circumstances of the parties, including their financial situations, and the terms of the original spousal maintenance order. The wife argued that the husband's application should be dismissed, and the court was required to assess the merits of this argument.
The court found that the husband's application for a reduction in spousal maintenance and the discharge of arrears should be dismissed, except for the arrears accrued after the filing of the husband’s application on 10 December 2008 and before the discharge of the spousal maintenance order on 4 February 2009, which were to be discharged. The court was satisfied with the wife's argument that the husband's application should not be granted in full, and therefore dismissed it. The court did not order any costs unless an application was made within 28 days, and all other outstanding applications were dismissed. The exhibits were to be returned unless an appeal was lodged, and the matter was to be removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That the husband’s application filed on 10 December 2008 and as subsequently amended seeking a reduction in spousal maintenance and the discharge of any arrears of spousal maintenance be dismissed save that any arrears for spousal maintenance accrued during the period following the filing of the husband’s application on 10 December 2008 and the discharge of the subject spousal maintenance order on
4 February 2009 be discharged.
2.
If any party seeks costs, an appropriate application to my chambers may be made within 28 days of today’s date and the Court will deal with that matter by way of written submissions unless the parties wish to be heard orally. If no such application is made within that time period, there will be no order as to costs.
3.
All outstanding applications (save as to costs, including any reserved costs) otherwise be dismissed.
4.
All exhibits tendered in these proceedings, be returned at the expiration of 1 (one) calendar month, unless an appeal is lodged.
5.
The matter be removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.
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.