McNally and McNally

[2009] FamCA 370

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MCNALLY & MCNALLY [2009] FamCA 370

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Consent orders

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms McNally

RESPONDENT: Mr McNally

FILE NUMBER: MLF 2597 of 2005

DATE DELIVERED: 5 MAY 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CRONIN

HEARING DATE: 5 MAY 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: MR DAVIS

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: MCGUINNESS & HOSKING PTY

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: MR SWEENEY

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: HARDYS LAWYERS

Orders

1. That BY CONSENT there be orders in accordance with the minutes of proposed orders marked Exhibit “A” sealed and attached hereto AND IT IS DIRECTED that such minutes remain upon the Court file.

2. That the solicitor for the husband engross the minutes and deliver them by electronic transmission to my Associate within 7 days.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym McNally & McNally is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLF 2597  of 2005

MS MCNALLY

Applicant

And

MR MCNALLY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a property dispute between the parties which has resolved with consent orders. 

2. There are a variety of business interests involved and the parties have agreed that the distribution amounts to almost an equal division of assets.

3. Each party has been the primary caregiver to at least one child of the marriage and I have read the financial documents filed by each party even though they may now be somewhat outdated to the extent that I understand the financial position of each side.

4. The outcome has a strong ring of commercial reality about it as each party is retaining assets which will enable them to have some capital backing in the future.

5. I am satisfied in the circumstances that the orders are just and equitable.

I certify that the preceding Five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin

Associate: 

Date:  13 May 2009