Narlow and Ors and Narlow and Anor

[2008] FamCA 533

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NARLOW AND ORS & NARLOW AND ANOR [2008] FamCA 533

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS

APPLICANT: MRS NARLOW

SECOND APPLICANT: J NARLOW

THIRD APPLICANT: E NARLOW

RESPONDENT: MR NARLOW

SECOND RESPONDENT: NARLOW INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED

FILE NUMBER: SYF 3384 of 2006

DATE DELIVERED: 7 July 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J

HEARING DATE: 7 July 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANTS: Mr Thomas

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANTS: Hall Partners

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: Mr Carney

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENTS:	Paltos & Co.
SOLICITOR FOR Y NARLOW:	Barkus Edwards Doolan

Orders

1. The matter be adjourned to 25 September 2008.

2. The Applicant, Mrs Narlow, pay the Respondent, Mr Narlow, his costs of today to be taxed.

3. Order 11 sought in the application in a case filed by the Wife on 1 July 2008 in regards to the adding of Y Narlow as a party to proceedings is dismissed.

4. The Applicant, Mrs Narlow, pay Mr Y Narlow’s costs of appearance today.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Narlow & Narlow is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYF3384/2006

MRS NARLOW

Applicant

J NARLOW

Second Applicant

E NARLOW

Third Applicant

And

MR NARLOW

Respondent

NARLOW INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application on the part of Mrs Narlow (the wife) for various orders as is contained in an application filed on 1 July 2008, the long one; and another application in which she seeks the joining of two more Narlows, if I may put it that way. 

2. In so far as the longer of the applications is concerned, I read and incorporate it in my short reasons for judgment.  I am satisfied that as a result of matters which have flown, in particular, I refer to the interim consent orders of 4 April 2008, that the application is generally flawed.  That interim consent order of    4 April requires the respondent Husband, Mr Narlow, to deposit (see paragraph order 1) an amount of $30 million in an interest bearing account in the name of the second respondent, with ING Bank Limited, and shall not cause or permit the balance of such account to be reduced below the amount of $30 million, save with the agreement in writing of the husband and wife, or pursuant to an order of the Court. 

3. As I interpret the application before me, it is to appoint a receiver for the company, whose assets consist, inter alia, of a business premises known as N Building which is valued at $56 million, and to, in effect, wind up the company or the, I don't know whether it is the company or just the land as being sold, and a contract has been exchanged in March and it is anticipated that, notwithstanding there have been a few glitches, it should settle in the near future. 

4. If the $56 million is forthcoming, and it is a cash contract, as I understand, the $30 million will be paid, and one would have thought that the wife would be more than adequately protected by way of that order since this application for property settlement relates to a marriage of some 20 years, in which the husband brought in by far the greater majority of the assets of the parties and, notwithstanding the fact that the wife may have contributed something like $500,000 to $1 million during such cohabitation, I would be surprised if the wife would receive more than the $30 million.   I am not in any way attempting to bind any of my fellow or sister judges since I have not considered the matter in full, and I am not in any way saying that this is a finding of law, fact or otherwise. 

5. I am more than satisfied on the material before me, that the application in relation to the appointment of a receiver is doomed to failure.  However, it has been submitted by Mr Thomas of counsel for the wife that I should adjourn the matter to 25 September 2008, and I understand that there is no objection to that taken by Mr Carney of counsel for the respondent, and I will so do so. 

6. In so far as the short minutes of orders sought which, inter alia, request that I order the respondent would instruct the firm of solicitors Freehills irrevocably to pay into Westpac Bank account in the name of the second respondent the proceeds of the sale of the N Building, inter alia, have, as far as I am concerned, been overtaken, or not overtaken, but that they were overtaken by the interim consent order of 4 April 2008 and I would dismiss such application. 

7. The balance of the application is adjourned to 25 September 2008. 

8. Ms Morozov appears on behalf of Y Narlow (see order 11 of the application of 1 July).  She says that it is unnecessary to be added as a party; that the wife, if she can make out a case, can file an application to in fact join him as a party to the proceedings. I think there is much in what she says.  In those circumstances I dismiss the application in relation to order 11 sought and I adjourn the balance of the application to 25 September 2008.

9. I reserve the costs.   

10. There is an application made for me to vary my order in which I reserved all costs.  Mr Carney of counsel submits that this application was doomed to failure.  It has not failed yet, except in some parts, and it is still alive and would remain alive, I would have thought, until Watts J handles the matter.  However, the order which was sought to be made today by the applicant wife has failed, and in those circumstances I would order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of today to be taxed. Otherwise costs are reserved to Watts J.  

11. I order the applicant to pay Y Narlow’s costs of his appearance here today. 

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bell.  

Associate: 

Date:  14 July 2008