NORTON & LOCKE

Case [2013] FCCA 1259


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NORTON & LOCKE [2013] FCCA 1259
Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Stay – application for Stay pending Appeal – whether de facto financial cause – jurisdiction of the Court to make interlocutory orders where de facto relationship in issue – principles relating to stay considered.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.4

Family Law Rules 2004, r.22.11
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.6.19

Cases cited:
Aldridge & Keaton (Stay Appeal) [2009] FamCAFC 106
Jackson & Balen [2009] FamCAFC 131
Locke & Norton [2013] FCCA 1154
State Central Authority & Ustinov (No.2) [2008] FamCA 368
Stone & Stone [2013] FamCA 479
Applicant: MR NORTON
Respondent: MS LOCKE
File Number: SYC 2828 of 2013
Judgment of: Judge Scarlett
Hearing date: 23 August 2013
Date of Last Submission: 23 August 2013
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 3 September 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mrs Bridger
Solicitors for the Applicant: Barraket Stanton Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr White SC
Solicitors for the Respondent: Michael Conley Lawyers

ORDERS

  1. The Application for a stay of Orders (1) to (5) inclusive made on 6 August 2013 is dismissed.

  2. The Respondent’s costs are reserved.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYC 2828 of 2013

MR NORTON

Applicant

And

MS LOCKE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

  1. This is an Application by the Respondent to the primary Application for a stay of the Orders made by this Court on 6 August 2013 (Locke & Norton[1]). Those Orders provided that, until further order:

    (1)The Respondent, his servants, agents or otherwise howsoever pending the final determination of these proceedings or further Order is restrained from interfering with the Applicant’s continued exclusive occupancy of the property situated at [Property D] in the State of New South Wales being the land in folio identifier [omitted] (the property).

    (2)The Respondent, his servants, agents or otherwise howsoever pending the final determination of these proceedings or further Order is restrained from doing any act or thing or causing any act or thing to be done which has the purpose or effect of transferring, assigning, mortgaging, encumbering, charging or otherwise dealing with his interest in the property including whether at law or in equity.

    (3)The Respondent pending final determination of these proceedings or further Order is to pay the following outgoings in relation to the property as and when they fall due:

    3.1    mortgage payments;

    3.2    council rates;

    3.3    insurances;

    3.4    body corporate levies;

    3.5    water rates; and

    3.6    electricity and gas charges.

    (4)The Respondent must file and serve a Financial Statement as required by Rule 24.02 within fourteen (14) days of the date of these Orders.

    (5)The Respondent must provide to the Applicant’s solicitors a copy of all documents referred to in Rule 24.04 within fourteen (14) days of the date…

Continue reading NORTON & LOCKE

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
NORTON & LOCKE [2013] FCCA 1259
Case
[2013] FCCA 1259
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Norton & Locke*, the applicant sought a stay of certain orders made on 6 August 2013. The court was required to determine whether to grant this application for a stay.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant a stay of the previously made orders. This involved an assessment of the applicant's prospects of success on appeal and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The court dismissed the application for a stay. The reasons for this decision are not detailed in the provided text, but the outcome indicates that the applicant failed to satisfy the necessary legal tests for obtaining a stay of the 6 August 2013 orders. The court also reserved the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Application for a stay of Orders (1) to (5) inclusive made on 6 August 2013 is dismissed.

2.

The Respondent’s costs are reserved.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.