Massalski & Riley (No 2)
[2022] FedCFamC1F 155
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Massalski & Riley (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 155
File number(s): SYC 496 of 2015 Judgment of: HARPER J Date of judgment: 16 March 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application in a Proceeding – Where the de facto wife seeks leave to file an Application in a Proceeding – Where formal application is required from de facto wife – Where leave is granted for de facto wife to file an application to stay – Where orders were made previously dismissing the de facto wife’s s 90SN claim – Where submissions are required pursuant to the de facto husband’s s 102QB application and the application for the appointment of receivers Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 90SN, 102QB Cases cited: Massalski & Riley [2022] FedCFamC1F 36 Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 5 Date of last submission/s: 16 March 2022 Date of hearing: 16 March 2022 Place: Sydney Solicitor for the Applicant: In person Solicitor for the Respondent: Byrnes Legal ORDERS
SYC 496 of 2015 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS MASSALSKI
Applicant
AND: MR RILEY
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
HARPER J
DATE OF ORDER:
16 MARCH 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The proceedings be stood over to 10.30am on 26 May 2022 to receive submissions limited to the question of whether the de facto husband’s relief pursuant to s 102QB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and for the appointment of receivers should be granted.
2.Leave be granted to the de facto wife to file and serve an application seeking leave to apply for a stay of orders made 4 February 2022. Such application to be filed by no later than close of registry filing on 19 April 2022, with any such application supported by affidavit.
3.By no later than close of registry filing on 23 May 2022, the parties file a case outline setting out detailed submissions in relation to the relief referred to in Order 1.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.The de facto wife requires leave to file an Application in a Proceeding by reason of Order 5 made on 4 February 2022 that no party was to file any further applications in the proceedings without leave of the Court.
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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish 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 pseudonym Massalski & Riley is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HARPER J:
I delivered reasons for judgment and orders on 4 February 2022 dismissing the applicant de facto wife’s claims pursuant to s 90SN of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) but reserving the question of whether the de facto husband’s claims for relief pursuant to s 102QB of the Act and for the appointment of receivers to be determined on a future date in the event the de facto husband chose to press that relief.
The matter was listed before me on 16 March 2022 for the purpose of hearing from the parties on the question of whether a further listing was necessary.
On 16 March 2022, the de facto wife informed me that she had appealed my decision of 4 February 2022 and sought leave to file an application staying my orders.
I note here that the de facto wife requires leave to file the application by reason of an order made on 4 February 2022 that no party was to file any further application in the proceedings without leave of the Court.
In submissions made to me on 16 March 2022, the de facto wife identified, as I understood it, as grounds for a stay the fact that there are proceedings or disputes between her and purchasers of Unit 2, F Street, Suburb G, being a property which is defined in my judgment of 4 February 2022 (Massalski & Riley [2022] FedCFamC1F 36). Nothing that the de facto wife put to me on 16 March 2022 persuaded me that there was any reason to grant her leave to file an application to stay in the absence of a formal application seeking leave supported by affidavit evidence.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Harper. Associate:
Dated: 16 March 2022
0