Legal Research
Cases
Melounis & Melounis

Melounis & Melounis

Case [2022] FedCFamC2F 650 24 May 2022

Parenting Orders

Property Settlement

Equal Shared Parental Responsibility

Specific Performance

Restitution

Family Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Melounis & Melounis [2022] FedCFamC2F 650

File number(s): SYC 7199 of 2019

Judgment of: JUDGE MORLEY

Date of judgment: 24 May 2022

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – parenting – final orders – parents seek equal shared parental responsibility – Mother seeks relocation from Sydney to the Region B – Father and Mother each seek children live with them and spend time with the other parent.

FAMILY LAW – property – final defended hearing – orders pursuant to section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – where asset pool is contested – where Court deals with asserted “addbacks” and asserted liabilities to the pool – where Court finds it just and equitable to make an order pursuant to section 79

Legislation:
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – s118

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – ss4AB, 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 64B, 65D, 65DAA, 65DAB, 67ZC, 68B, 68P, 75, 79, 79A, 90XZ, 114, 117

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – s10

Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) – s14

Cases cited:
A & A & The Child Representative (1998) 22 FamLR 756

AJO v GRO (2005) 191 FLR 317

Bevan & Bevan (2013) 279 FLR 1

Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82

Dickons & Dickons [2012] FamCAFC 154

Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104

Fields & Smith [2015] FamCAFC 5

Fontana & Fontana [2018] FamCAFC 63

G & C [2006] FamCA 994

Godfrey & Sanders (2007) FamCA 102

Grier & Malphas (2017) 55 Fam LR 107

Hickey & Hickey & Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (‘Hickey’) [2003] FamCA 395

In the Marriage of Biltoft C.J. & Biltoft V. (1995) FLC 92-614

Johnson & Page (2007) FLC 93-344

M & M (1988) FLC 91-973

Masoud & Masoud [2013] FamCA 763

Masoud & Masoud [2016] FamCAFC 24

Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520

McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92

Napier & Hepburn (2006) FLC 93-303

Shan & Prasad [2018] FamCAFC 12

Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108

Talbot & Talbot [2015] FamCAFC 132

Trevi & Trevi [2018] FamCAFC 173

Vadisanis & Vadisanis & Anor [2014] FamCAFC 97

Vass & Vass [2015] FamCAFC 51

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 575

Date of last submission/s: 20 July 2021

Date of hearing: 14, 15, 16, 18 September 2020 and 6, 12 November 2020 and 2 July 2021

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Maurice

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Wong
ORDERS

SYC 7199 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR MELOUNIS

Applicant

AND:
MS MELOUNIS

Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE MORLEY

DATE OF ORDER:

23 May 2022

THE COURT ORDERS:
PARENTING
1.That the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for their children X born in 2013 and Y born in 2016.
2.That the Mother’s application to relocate the children’s place of residence to the Region B is refused.
3.That until the Mother establishes for herself…

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 Melounis & Melounis

Details

AGLC: Melounis & Melounis [2022] FedCFamC2F 650
Case: [2022] FedCFamC2F 650
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Melounis & Melounis, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia dealt with parenting and property proceedings between Mr Melounis (the Father) and Ms Melounis (the Mother). The Court addressed the parenting arrangements for their two children, X and Y, and made orders concerning the division of their property and superannuation. The Court found that the parents should have equal shared parental responsibility for the children and established a detailed schedule for the children to live with each parent. The Court also ordered that the F Street, Suburb D property be sold, with the proceeds to be divided equally between the parties after certain debts were paid off. Additionally, the Court made a superannuation splitting order, providing a base amount of $114,474 to the Wife from the Husband's Super Fund AM.

Orders