Morrison and Morley and Ors

[2011] FamCA 976

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MORRISON & MORLEY AND ORS [2011] FamCA 976

FAMILY LAW - PROPERTY

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Morrrison

RESPONDENT: Mr Morley

2^ND RESPONDENT: Mr Stewart

3^RD RESPONDENT: Mr Churchin

FILE NUMBER: SYC 862 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 24 June 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Fowler J

HEARING DATE: 24 June 2011

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Levitt

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Ronayne Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Dr Ingleby (by telephone link)

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Gadens Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE 2^ND AND 3^RD RESPONDENTS:
Mr Mater

SOLICITOR FOR THE 2^ND AND 3^RD RESPONDENTS:
Paul Bard Lawyers

Orders

1. The wife's Application in a Case filed in Court this day is dismissed.

2. Leave is granted to the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents to press an application for costs.

3. The wife is to forthwith pay the costs of the liquidators:  as to legal costs in the sum of $22,953 and as to their fees in the sum of $11,321.75.

4. Leave is granted to the husband to make an oral application for costs.

5. The costs of the husband will be reserved to the hearing.

6. Any Amended Application in a Case is to be filed by the wife on or before the close of business on Monday next, 27 June 2011.

7. Any affidavit in support of that Application is to be filed and served by close of business on 5 July 2011.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Morrison & Morley and Ors has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Act.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 862  of 2008

Ms Morrison

Applicant

And

Mr Morley

Respondent

And

Mr Stewart

2^nd Respondent

And

Mr Churchin

3^rd Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. For reasons that have been set forth in my discourse with Mr Levitt in these proceedings and on the basis that there is not before the Court evidence in admissible form which in the Court’s view would properly sustain a case for the making of the orders sought in the application filed in Court this day, the application is dismissed.

RECORDED:  NOT TRANSCRIBED

1. Before the Court is an application by the liquidators in these proceedings who were respondents to an unsuccessful application by the wife to restrain them undertaking their responsibilities.

1. The liquidators have brought an application seeking an order for costs and those costs fall into two categories, that is to say the legal costs of and incidental to their application which are in the sum of $22,953.23 which are agreed to by the wife as being appropriate in quantum and then in addition the liquidators claim fees for the work they undertook on behalf of the company in answering the claim of the wife and their time is costed at $11,321.

2. The wife was wholly unsuccessful in the application before the Court.

3. Before the Court is a Financial Statement of the wife last sworn on 30 April 2009 showing gross assets of $827,956 and liabilities of $329,931.  No updated Financial Statements have been tendered to the Court.

4. The Court takes the view that the wife will have sufficient funds to meet the order for costs and, having regard to the fact that the proceedings were brought against strangers to the marriage, it is appropriate in the circumstances that their costs be paid.

5. Accordingly the Court determines that it is appropriate that the wife pay the costs of the liquidators as to legal costs in the sum of $22,953 and as to their fees in the sum of $11,321.75, and will so Order.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Fowler delivered on 24 June 2011.

Associate: 

Date:  21 December 2011