Mulford and Mulford

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MULFORD & MULFORD [2019] FamCA 843

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim Property Orders – Farming concern – net assets valued at approximately $3m made up of farms, cattle and horses, cash-at-bank and water rights – different assessments of wife’s likely division of property at trial – six year marriage – contributions in issue – $130,000 ordered – interlocutory orders made for disclosure and valuations.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, s 80(1)(h)
Family Law Rules 2004 Ch 13

Finazzi & Finazzi [2012] FamCA 102
Gabel & Yardley (2008) 40 Fam LR 66
Strahan & Strahan (2009) 42 Fam LR 203
Zschokke & Zschokke (1996) 20 Fam LR 766

APPLICANT: Mr Mulford

RESPONDENT: Ms Mulford

FILE NUMBER: MLC 6905 of 2019

DATE DELIVERED: 19 November 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Wilson J

HEARING DATE: 13 November 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr N James

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Taylor & Whitty Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms P Byrnes

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Blackwood Family Lawyers

Orders

1. On or before 4pm on 26 November 2019 the parties bring in a minute that gives effect to these reasons.

2. The further hearing of this proceeding is otherwise adjourned to the Senior Registrar.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 6905 of 2019

Mr Mulford

Applicant

And

Ms Mulford

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The issue over which the parties were unable to agree came before me when sitting in the judicial duty list on 13 November 2019.  Conversely, the parties agreed on eight issues the details of which are recorded below.

2. The main arena of debate on 13 November 2019 related to the wife’s application for payment of $190 000.  On her behalf, Ms P Byrnes of counsel contended that the sum of $190 000 could be raised in part from the amount of $50 000 of the amount of $61 000 currently held by P Company and the balance ($140 000) to be raised by the sale of water rights attaching to the real property at Property L. 

3. Another issue related to the identity of the agent through whom several valuable horses would be sold. 

4. On behalf of the husband Mr N James of counsel made a collection of submissions.  He said –

   a)the wife had already been provided with substantial sums;

   b)this was a six year relationship…