Mertin and Mertin

[2009] FamCA 1286

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MERTIN & MERTIN [2009] FamCA 1286

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Consent Orders

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Mertin

RESPONDENT: Mr Mertin

FILE NUMBER: MLC 8312 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 7 December 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 7 December 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Fookes

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Webb Korfiatis

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Wilson

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Maeve O’Brien & Associates

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 wife 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 Mertin & Mertin is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 8312 of 2009

MS MERTIN

Applicant

And

MR MERTIN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application in a duty list in which the parties had come for a different purpose, but have, ultimately, resolved all financial issues outstanding between them.  The parties have tendered minutes of final orders under which the wife is to receive a sum of $300,000 by instalments, and otherwise retain what she has, and likewise with the husband. 

2. Neither party is able to tell me precisely what the figures mean, and that is not necessarily the test.  The test is that the court must be satisfied in the circumstances that the orders are just and equitable.  It is the underlying value of the assets that must be just and equitable for both parties.  It seems, on a very rough figure, that there is a dispute probably somewhere in the vicinity of half a million dollars between the parties, but the wife is not in the position to prove that the husband has $1.5 million anymore than the husband is able to prove that he has less than a million dollars. 

3. Both parties are approaching the matter on the basis that they will have to expend considerable costs, particularly having regard to the fact that there are commercial entities involved.  Both parties are also sensibly approaching the matter on the basis that this has got a ring of commercial reality about it.  I do not have to be satisfied as to the precise details.  All I have to be satisfied is that both parties have had advice, know what they are doing, want the court to make the orders, and that I am satisfied that it is within the range of probable outcomes, even on the material that I have.  I am satisfied in these circumstances that these orders are just and equitable. 

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin

Associate: 

Date:  30 December 2009