MEDLOW & MEDLOW - [2015] FamCA 1183

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEDLOW & MEDLOW

[2015] FamCA 1183

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim – Where previous interim property orders had been appealed to the Full Court and judgment reserved – Where the issues in the appeal are similar to those in the present Application – Where the applicant husband seeks orders that he receive certain moneys including a sum of $180 000 to meet living costs –Where it would be undesirable that there be a further interlocutory hearing until the outcome of the appeal is known – Orders made to adjourn the proceedings.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79

Harris & Harris (1993) FLC 92-378

APPLICANT:

Mr Medlow

RESPONDENT:

Ms Medlow

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

7742

2010

DATE DELIVERED:

16 December 2015

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Loughnan J

HEARING DATE:

16 December 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Gould

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Watts McCray Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Richardson SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Barkus Doolan

Orders

The proceedings in relation to the husband’s Application filed on 8 December 2015 are adjourned to 10.00 am on 16 February 2016.

Any Amended Response and any affidavit on which the wife seeks to rely be filed and served by the close of business on 11 February 2016 unless the parties otherwise agree in writing.

The Application of the wife filed 29 September 2015 for the husband to be dealt with for contempt of court is to be listed for hearing of one day on a date convenient to the parties, after 16 February 2016 being a date settled by the Registry.

The 1 February 2016 listing of the Application filed on 29 September 2015 is vacated.

The question of costs of and incidental to the proceedings today is reserved.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Medlow & Medlow has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC7742 of 2010

Mr Medlow

Applicant

And

Ms Medlow

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The argument today has become one of relatively narrow compass, but the issues arise in fairly complicated circumstances. I made decisions in July and September of 2014 in relation to interim financial relief in the context of proceedings for settlement of property. Each of those decisions is the subject of an appeal. The appeals were heard in June 2015. I understand that some further evidence was adduced after the hearing of the appeal. The Full Court is still reserved. Inquiries by my chambers revealed that judgment may be given around mid-February 2016.
An Application was filed by the husband on 8 December 2015 seeking a raft of orders, including orders of a similar type to the orders made by me in July of last year, but there are also other orders, orders vacating or discharging longstanding orders for spousal maintenance and adult child maintenance, orders…

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 MEDLOW & MEDLOW

Details

AGLC: MEDLOW & MEDLOW [2015] FamCA 1183
Case: [2015] FamCA 1183
Decision Date: 16 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Medlow & Medlow*, Loughnan J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application by the husband filed on 8 December 2015, and an application by the wife filed on 29 September 2015, seeking that the husband be dealt with for contempt of court. The proceedings involved a dispute between the parties concerning their family law matter.

The court was required to determine the future conduct of the proceedings, including the listing of the wife's contempt application and the filing of further documents by the parties. The court also had to consider the costs of the proceedings before it.

Loughnan J adjourned the husband's application to a later date and ordered that any amended response and supporting affidavit from the wife be filed and served by 11 February 2016, unless the parties agreed otherwise in writing. The wife's contempt application was to be listed for a one-day hearing after 16 February 2016, with the existing listing for 1 February 2016 vacated. The question of costs was reserved.

Orders

Orders of the court

The proceedings in relation to the husband’s Application filed on 8 December 2015 are adjourned to 10.00 am on 16 February 2016.

Any Amended Response and any affidavit on which the wife seeks to rely be filed and served by the close of business on 11 February 2016 unless the parties otherwise agree in writing.

The Application of the wife filed 29 September 2015 for the husband to be dealt with for contempt of court is to be listed for hearing of one day on a date convenient to the parties, after 16 February 2016 being a date settled by the Registry.

The 1 February 2016 listing of the Application filed on 29 September 2015 is vacated.

The question of costs of and incidental to the proceedings today is reserved.

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.