Olsson & Olsson
[2022] FedCFamC1A 129
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Olsson & Olsson [2022] FedCFamC1A 129
Appeal from: Olsson & Olsson [2022] FCWAM 95 Appeal number(s): NAA 62 of 2022 File number(s): PTW 6458 of 2015 Judgment of: ALDRIDGE J Date of judgment: 18 August 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PROPERTY – Appeal from orders made to aid the enforcement of the property settlement orders – Where those orders altered the husband’s interest in the properties and the wife’s right of occupation in the former matrimonial home – Whether the orders are substantive or consequential – Where the substantive order was that the wife receive a fixed sum of money and thus the appealed orders are consequential – Exercise of direction – No error established – Appeal dismissed – Appellant to pay the costs of the respondent in a fixed sum. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 79A, 83 Cases cited: House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
McDonald and McDonald (1976) FLC 90-047
Mullane v Mullane (1983) 158 CLR 436; [1983] HCA 4
Pera & Pera (2008) FLC 93-372; [2008] FamCAFC 87
Ravasini and Ravasini (1983) FLC 91-312
Number of paragraphs: 51 Date of hearing: 4 August 2022 Place: Perth, delivered in Sydney Counsel for the Appellant: Mr Hedges SC Solicitor for the Appellant: Biddulph & Turley Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Hooper SC Solicitor for the Respondent: MGM O’Connor Lawyers ORDERS
NAA 62 of 2022
PTW 6458 of 2015FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTIONBETWEEN: MS OLSSON
Appellant
AND: MR OLSSON
Respondent
order made by:
ALDRIDGE J
DATE OF ORDER:
18 august 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application in an Appeal filed on 26 July 2022 is dismissed.
2.The Application in an Appeal filed on 2 August 2022 is dismissed.
3.The Application in an Appeal filed on 3 August 2022 is dismissed.
4.The application for leave to appeal is refused.
5.The appellant is to pay the costs of the respondent fixed in the sum of $14,833.44.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Olsson & Olsson has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ALDRIDGE J:
Introduction
On 21 November 2019, property settlement orders were made by consent in proceedings between Ms Olsson (“the wife”) and Mr Olsson (“the husband”). The wife was to be paid $1.27 million which was to be realised from the sale of three commercial properties owned by the husband, or corporations owned and controlled by him, and by the sale of the former matrimonial home which was registered in the name of both parties. The husband was to retain the surplus of the sale of the properties, if any, after payment of the agreed sum to the wife.
The husband did not comply with the orders for the sale of the properties as provided for in the orders, but was able to raise the sum of $1.27 million by other means. The wife, however, insisted on the orders being carried out according to their terms. This led to the husband bringing proceedings, effectively, to vary the orders so as to provide for payment to the wife but without the obligation to sell the properties.
On 11 March 2022, a magistrate of the Family Court of Western Australia, made a number of orders “[b]y way and in aid of enforcement” of the property settlement orders made on 21 November 2019, the effect of which was to accede to the husband’s application. Importantly, the orders providing for the sale of the former matrimonial home, with the net proceeds being paid to the husband, were replaced by an order that the wife transfer it to him.
In this appeal, the wife contended that those orders were erroneously made because they altered substantive orders made under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), which can only be done pursuant to a successful application under s 79A of the Act.
For his part, the husband contended that the orders that were altered by the magistrate were consequential orders to the substantive settlement of property rights which could properly be varied.
The issue on appeal therefore, as it was before the magistrate, was the characterisation of the orders so as to identify the substantive property orders and the orders that were consequential to them and intended to put the substantive orders into effect. As will be explained shortly, such consequential orders maybe subsequently varied whereas the substantive orders can only be varied under s 79A of the Act.
It is therefore necessary to say something about the parties’ property and to set the relevant orders out in full.
Background
The parties’ directly or indirectly, owned four items of real estate together with interests in three companies and a trust (which were collectively referred to in the orders as the “entities”). Two properties were owned by companies owned and controlled by the husband and one was owned by the husband himself. The former matrimonial home, described in the orders as the “FMH”, was owned jointly or in common. At the time they were made, it was occupied only by the wife.
The relevant orders made on 21 November 2019 were:
14.That the Husband pay to the Wife the sum of $1,270,000 (“the settlement”) as follows:-
(a)the sum of $80,000 within 30 days of the date of these Orders (“the first payment”);
(b)the sum of $10,000 per month (“the monthly payments”) until the settlement of the sale of the property situated at [Suburb C], in the State of Western Australia (“the FMH”) to commence on the first month following the payment of the sum pursuant to Order 14(a) hereof;
(c) any amounts payable pursuant to Orders 22(d), 23(d) and 24(d) hereof;
(d) the amount of $175,000 as set out in Order 9 hereof;
(e)the balance then remaining of the settlement sum upon settlement of the sale of the FMH pursuant to Order 27(d) hereof save that in the event that there are insufficient funds from the sale then the payments pursuant to sub paragraph (b) hereof continue until such time as the Wife receives the full amount to which she is entitled under this Order.
Other payments
15.That within 14 days of these Orders being made or within 14 days of the issue of a Notice of Assessment or Amended Notice of Assessment as the case may be, whichever is the sooner, the Husband will either pay or cause to be paid all income tax of the Wife, past present or future, arising from distributions to the Wife from one or more of the Entities (as defined in Order 18 or any other entity under the control of the Husband) assessed in accordance with any Notice of Assessment or any subsequent Amended Notice of Assessment issued to the Wife or enter into a payment plan with the Australian Taxation Office as to same and any penalties and interest which may have accrued payable by the Wife for the 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 tax years and provide proof of payment to the Wife within 7 days of payment.
…
The Entities
17.That on the making of these Orders the Husband forthwith do all acts and sign all documents necessary to:-
(a)secure the Wife’s release from any guarantee given by her and arising from, or in relation to, her involvement in any of the Entities as defined in Order 18;
(b)pay as and when they fall due, and indemnify the Wife, and thereafter keep her indemnified, against any and all actions, claims or debts arising from or in relation to her involvement in the Entities including but not limited to:
(i) Any guarantees given by her;
(ii)Any amounts recorded as owing by her in the financial statements of any of the Entities;
(iii)Any Capital Gains Tax payable in respect to the sale of the Commercial Properties as defined below; and
(iv)Any tax, interest or penalties arising from distributions made to her from, or her involvement in, any of the Entities, including the tax liabilities, including penalties and interest, arising in her name from distributions made to her in the financial years from 2016 to 2019 as referred to in Orders 18 and 19 excluding any fines or penalties that the Wife may incur from the Australian Taxation Office for any receipt of government payments such as the family tax benefit.
(c)within 7 days transfer Wife’s mobile telephone number (being …) to the Wife, he having paid all amounts due to the provider up to and including the date of transfer.
18.That upon the Husband’s compliance with Order 14(a) and Orders 17(a) and (c), and at his cost, the Wife do all acts and sign all the documents necessary, at the Husband’s expense as to (a), (b), (c) and (e) to:-
(a)Resign from any offices or positions she holds in [P Pty Ltd] and [Y Pty Ltd] including as a director;
(b)Transfer to the Husband all of her shares in [D Pty Ltd], [P Pty Ltd] and [Y Pty Ltd];
(c)Transfer and assign to the Husband any amounts listed as owing to her in the financial statements of any of the aforementioned entities or the [Olsson] Trust (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Entities”), and transfer to the Husband any debts showed as owed by her to the entities;
(d) Withdraw the Statutory Demands issued against the companies; and
(e)Subject to these Orders, relinquish any rights she may have as a beneficiary of [Olsson] Family Trust.
The Commercial Properties
19.That the Husband forthwith do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to list on the market for sale, and thereafter cause the sale and settlement of the following properties:-
(a) [Property A, Suburb A]
(b) [Property B, Suburb A]
(c) [Property C, Suburb A]
(collectively referred to as “the Commercial Properties”)
and each property shall be actively marketed for sale and listed on realestate.com.au within 4 weeks of the date of these orders and remain listed and available for viewing on a weekly basis on such website until sale.
20.That the Husband shall accept any offer for any of the Commercial Properties which either meets or exceeds or is within 10% of the value being:
(a) $762,125 for [Property A];
(b) $1,772,550 for [Property B]
(c) $446,725 for [Property C]
21.In the event that all of the above properties set out in Order 19 are not sold within a period of 12 months the parties agree to reconsider the acceptable sale price for those properties based on three updated appraisals of the properties at that time.
22.Upon the sale and settlement of [Property A] the proceeds be distributed as follows:-
(a) In payment of any Agent’s fees and commissions;
(b) In payment of any adjustments for rates and taxes;
(c) In payment of any loans secured by mortgage over [Property A];
(d)In payment of the balance (if any) to the Wife in reduction of the amount owing to her pursuant to Order 14.
23.Upon the sale and settlement of [Property B] the proceeds be distributed as follows:-
(a) In payment of any Agent’s fees and commissions;
(b) In payment of any adjustments for rates and taxes;
(c) In payment of any loans secured by mortgage over [Property B];
(d)In payment of the balance (if any) to the Wife in reduction of the amount owing to her pursuant to Order 14.
24.Upon the sale and settlement of [Property C] the proceeds be distributed as follows:-
(a) In payment of any Agent’s fees and commissions;
(b) In payment of any adjustments for rates and taxes;
(c) In payment of any loans secured by mortgage over [Property C];
(d)In payment of the balance (if any) to the Wife in reduction of the amount owing to her pursuant to Order 14.
The Former Matrimonial Home
25.Upon an unconditional contract for the sale of the last of the commercial properties being entered into, the parties do all acts and sign all documents necessary to list on the market for sale, and thereafter cause the sale and settlement of the FMH.
26. For the purposes of the preceding paragraph:-
(a)The parties appoint such real estate agents as they shall agree upon, and failing agreement, such agent as may be recommended by the president of the Real Estate Institute of Western Australia upon request from either party in writing (“the Agent”);
(b)The parties list the property for sale in such a manner and upon such terms as the parties may agree upon advice from the Agent;
(c)The Wife shall co-operate with the Agent’s reasonable requests and ensure the FMH is in a reasonable and tidy state of repair and facilitate the Agent in having open homes at such reasonable times as they may request;
(d)The parties accept any offer over $1,850,000 or such other sum as is agreed with the property to be listed for sale at $1,990,000; and
(e)The parties otherwise have liberty to apply in relation to the terms of sale.
27.Upon the sale and settlement of the FMH the proceeds be distributed as follows:-
(a) In payment of any Agent’s fees and commissions;
(b) In payment of any adjustments for rates and taxes;
(c) In payment of any loans secured by mortgage over the property;
(d)In payment of the remaining amount due to the Wife pursuant to Order 14 of these Orders;
(e) In payment of the balance then remaining to the Husband.
28. Pending settlement of the sale of the former matrimonial home:
(a)The Wife have exclusive use and occupation of the FMH and during such right of occupation she pay all the costs of occupation being gas, electricity, water usage, contents insurance, cleaning, general pool maintenance and garden maintenance.
(b)The Wife is to keep the FMH in clean and tidy condition, fair wear and tear excepted with the property to be presented as a residential property.
(c)That forthwith upon these Orders being made, the Husband pay or cause to be paid the following amounts:-
(i)Such amounts as may be necessary to service the loans secured by mortgage over the FMH as and when they fall due.
(ii)Obtain and maintain home insurance for the home with a reputable insurance company and provide proof to the Wife within 7 days of a certificate of currency of insurance covering the home to the value of $850,000.
(iii)The following payments relating to the FMH as and when they fall due:-
(A)Rates and taxes and provide proof to the Wife of payment within 14 days of the due date;
(B) Urgent repairs as defined below;
(C)Agreed general repairs and maintenance and agreed or necessary improvements
Urgent repairs (for example repairs relating to basic services such as the provision of hot water, electricity and gas and repairs to inbuilt whitegoods (excluding the zip tap in the kitchen) and appliances to ensure they are in full working order) are to be carried out by licensed contractors paid for by the Husband within 48 hours of any urgent issue arising.
…
33. That there be liberty to apply in respect of:-
(a)the sale of the Commercial Properties in the event that the properties are not sold within 12 months of the date of these Orders;
(b) the sale of the FMH; and/or
(c)the release of the Wife from the guarantees referred to in Order 17(a) hereof.
Insofar as the division of property is concerned therefore, the wife was to receive $1.27 million and the husband was to receive the surplus amount remaining after the sale of the three commercial properties and the former matrimonial home and after the payment of the agreed sum to the wife. It is true that in Orders 22–24 there is no order for the payment of any surplus amount to the husband, but this is readily explainable.
It is clear, taking the order as a whole, that it was envisaged that the sale of all four properties was likely to be necessary to realise the payment to the wife. In such a case, there would be no surplus payable to the husband from the sale of the first three properties and no need for an order. If, in fact, there was a surplus remaining then, in the absence of an order, that surplus would be retained by the owner of the property. In the case of these properties, that was the husband or a corporation owned by him.
The husband only placed one of the commercial properties on the market for sale, however, it did not sell. It was asserted by the wife, but not determined by the magistrate, that the husband did not attempt to pursue the sale of that property with any vigour. The short point is that, for whatever reason, the orders for sale were not complied with.
It seems however, that the husband was able to raise the money payable to the wife by other means because on 25 November 2020 he filed an application said to be by way of enforcement, seeking the following orders:
Discharge of previous Orders
1.Pursuant to Order 14 of the 21 November 2019 Orders the Husband shall pay the Wife the sum of $915,000 within 14 days of the date of publication of these orders (“the remaining payment”).
2. Simultaneously with the Husband making the remaining payment;
(a)The wife shall do all acts and things to transfer to the Husband at the expense of the Husband all of her right title and interest in the land described in Certificate of Title Volume … being the land situate at [Suburb C] in the State of Western Australia;
(b)The Wife do all acts and sign all documents necessary to permit and facilitate the Husband treating the payments as a distribution to the Wife from one or more of the Entities (as defined in Order 18 of the 21 November 2019 Orders);
(c)So as to secure the Wife’s release from any guarantees given by her and arising from, or in relation to, her involvement in any of the Entities (as defined in Order 18 of the 21 November 2019 Orders) the Wife hand over any signed documents and do all acts and things necessary to facilitate same;
(d) The Wife do all acts and sign all the documents necessary, at the Husband’s expense as to (a), (b), (c) and (e) to: -
(i) Resign from any offices or positions she holds in [R Pty Ltd] and [Y Pty Ltd] including as a director;
(ii)Transfer to the Husband all of her shares in [D Pty Ltd], [R Pty Ltd] and [Y Pty Ltd]; and
(iii)Subject to these Orders, relinquish any rights she may have as a beneficiary of [Olsson] Family Trust;
(e)The Wife vacate [the former matrimonial home] and leave the property in clean and tidy condition, fair wear and tear excepted;
(f)The Wife sign and approve any renewals of finance, or refinance arrangements with … Bank and/or … Bank provided such renewals or refinances do not cause any liability for the Wife; and
(g)Orders 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32 and 33 of the 21 November 2019 Orders be discharged.
3.Pursuant to section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975, with the consent of the Principal Registrar, the Principal Registrar be appointed and permitted to execute documents required to fulfil the requirements of these Orders on the Wife’s behalf.
As can be seen, the orders made by the magistrate, subject of the appeal, were made largely along the lines sought by the husband. The effect was that the wife received $1.27 million as agreed and the husband retained the equity in all four properties.
Applications in the appeal
The parties filed Applications in an Appeal on 26 July 2022, 2 August 2022 and 3 August 2022, which seek leave to rely on late filed documents. At the appeal, there were no objections raised by either party in granting leave for those documents to be relied on and the applications became unnecessary.
The Appeal
Did his Honour make an error of law by altering the property interests and a varying the wife’s right of occupation to the former matrimonial home, and was that power exhausted? (Grounds 1 and 2)
The parties were not in dispute as to the law to be applied.
In McDonald and McDonald (1976) FLC 90-047 at 75,201, the Full Court identified the distinction between “those parts of an order which determine and vest property rights and those which provide for the machinery to carry out the order effectively”. The Full Court added:
In our view, there is ample power to modify the machinery provisions of a property order provided this does not affect the substantive property rights or cause undue hardship to either party.
The Full Court returned to these issues in Ravasini and Ravasini (1983) FLC 91-312. The Court said at 78,126:
There is no question of the power of the Court to make what we would with respect suggest is more properly called a consequential order. The real questions are what is the proper definition of a consequential or machinery order and where is the dividing line between a consequential order which may be varied or modified and a substantive order which the Act gives no power to the Court to modify or vary.
At 78,127, the Court said:
In determining whether or not an order may be varied as a machinery order, the enquiry must be firstly as to what part of the order is the substantive order and what part or parts of it merely follow that order as a necessary consequence. A Court in making a property order might do no more than order that the property be sold and the proceeds equally divided. That is the substantive order. If the Court at that time has before it sufficient evidence of the facts and circumstances it may go on and make appropriate “consequential” orders providing the machinery whereby the substantive order is to be carried out.
See also the discussion in Pera & Pera (2008) FLC 93-372 at [58]–[61].
The task at hand therefore is to determine which of the orders effected the property division between the parties, that is, the substantive orders, and which orders are consequential and were made to give effect to them.
As to these matters the magistrate said:
38.In my view, the proper construction of the final orders is that the substantive property settlement order is that which specifies the [wife’s] ultimate entitlement, namely order 14, the entitlement being $1,270,000. I conclude the provisions for the sale of the properties (including [Suburb C]) are machinery provisions which exist to give efficacy to the substantive order by providing a mechanism to raise funds to pay the settlement funds in larger instalments than the monthly payments.
It is necessary to look at the orders as a whole.
In doing so, the wife was to receive the fixed sum of $1.27 million, whatever the outcome of the sale of the properties. This flows from the terms of Order 14 and particularly Order 14(e) which makes it clear that the wife was to receive this sum even if the sale of all three commercial properties and the former matrimonial home realised insufficient surplus funds to pay the wife the agreed figure.
Orders 22–24 provide for the distribution of the sale proceeds from the three commercial properties. In each case, after payment of agent’s fees and commissions, outstanding rates, taxes and mortgages payments, “the balance (if any)” was to be paid to the wife in reduction of the amount owing to her.
As I said earlier, the only reasonable interpretation of these orders is that any surplus funds remaining after the payment of $1.27 million in full to the wife, would effectively remain in the hands of the husband.
On the sale of the former matrimonial home, the proceeds of sale were first to be used to pay the wife any part of the $1.27 million remaining outstanding, with any balance to go to the husband (Order 27).
It follows therefore, that the wife was to receive $1.27 million regardless of what might be recovered from the sale of the properties. The husband was to retain the equity the parties held in the four properties subject to the making of that payment. Therefore, the risk resulting from any rise or fall in the value of the properties and whether their sale would generate sufficient funds to pay the wife lay entirely with the husband.
This then, to my mind, is the substantial division of property – the wife is to receive a fixed sum of money and the husband is to receive the equity in the properties. The orders made to effect that division are consequential orders.
The sale of the various properties was to give effect to the agreed division and therefore are to be seen as consequential orders.
The wife submitted that these orders, however, did alter the interest of the husband and his entities in each of the properties. That is clearly so; they were required to be sold and the proceeds dealt with in a particular way. The purpose of the sale, however, was to generate funds to pay the wife the $1.27 million only and she was not entitled to any other share of the proceeds.
Thus, in circumstances where the wife had been paid in full prior to the sale of the properties, the husband directly or indirectly, would receive all of the benefit of the proceeds of sale. There would be no point in them being sold.
That position must be contrasted with the example given in Ravasini of a property having to be sold with the proceeds divided in a fixed proportion. There, the sale of the property cannot be divorced from the division of property and cannot be said to be a consequential order.
In my opinion, the magistrate was completely correct in making the above finding.
It was submitted on the appeal that Order 28(a), which gives the wife exclusive use and occupation of the former matrimonial home until it is sold, was properly to be characterised as a maintenance order which could only be discharged or varied under s 83 of the Act. As no such application was made, the submission continued, the order could not have been varied.
It is plain from Mullane v Mullane (1983) 158 CLR 436, that it is difficult to characterise an order for exclusive occupation of a property as an order altering the parties’ interest in that property. The Court said at 445–446:
The application of the wife which provoked these proceedings seeks an order that on the expiration of her right to occupancy the property be sold and the net proceeds thereof be divided as to two-thirds to her and one-third to the respondent. The application clearly seeks an alteration of the interests of a party in the property within s. 79. Special leave to appeal was granted in order to examine the question whether the Full Court was correct in denying jurisdiction to Hogan J. to deal with the application for the reason that the exclusive occupancy order made in 1967 should be treated as if it had been made under s. 79. It follows from the reasons we have outlined that in our opinion the Full Court erred in coming to that conclusion and that the denial of jurisdiction on that ground was not justified.
However, the right of occupation only existed until settlement of the sale of the former matrimonial home. The order for sale was part of the orders under s 79 of the Act, as an order to give effect to the property division. The order for occupation was only to operate until the husband became entitled to his equity in the property. Order 28(a) did not effect an alteration of the parties’ interests in the home.
Grounds 1 and 2 do not succeed.
Did the discretion miscarry because the outcome was manifestly unfair to the wife?
(Ground 3)The wife submitted that the magistrate’s decision was unreasonable and plainly wrong (House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 505) because:
·The husband’s failure to sell the properties as ordered means that the husband will take the advantage of significant rises in property values;
·The preclusion of the wife from the market was offset by the order for exclusive occupation;
·The Court’s imprimatur should not be given to the husband’s deliberate failure to comply with the orders; and
·The orders made by the magistrate deprived the wife of the opportunity to purchase the former matrimonial home when it was put up for sale.
As I have explained, the structure of the orders was that the wife was to receive a fixed sum and the husband was to bear the risk in the rise and fall in the value of the properties. That must be so in any case where one party is to receive a fixed sum and the other is to receive the equity in the properties.
Here, the parties clearly envisaged that the sale of the three commercial properties would not be enough to pay the wife and that she may not be paid in full even after the sale of the former matrimonial home. The orders are not unfair merely because a different outcome ensued.
What would be unfair would be a sale of three commercial properties for no point whatsoever as the proceeds would be retained entirely by the vendor.
The orders envisaged a reasonably prompt sale of the properties. That did not occur. The husband said he did the best he could, while the wife said that he deliberately did nothing. The magistrate saw no need to determine that issue. There was no point in doing so. The wife could have sought to enforce the sale of the properties before the sum of $1.27 million became available, but did not.
The effect of the above is that the wife has remained in the former matrimonial home for longer than she envisaged and she is understandably reluctant to leave it. However, that is the structure of the orders. It would not be just for her to retain the benefit of the orders ($1.27 million) and not comply with the burden of making the equity in the former matrimonial home available to the husband.
Finally, it could have been an appropriate exercise of discretion for the magistrate to have set aside the orders for the sale of the commercial properties but not the former matrimonial home. This would have permitted the wife to bid at any auction in an attempt to buy the home where she lives and from which she carries out her business. However, the matter was not raised before the magistrate and he cannot be said to be in error by not considering it.
This ground is not made out.
Leave to Appeal
The wife accepted that leave to appeal was required, as the orders made were interlocutory. As I am not satisfied there is any merit in the proposed grounds, no injustice would occur if leave was not granted.
Leave to appeal will be refused.
Costs
The husband sought costs in the sum of $14,833.44. The wife opposed the order relying on the allegedly poor conduct of the husband in failing to comply with the orders. As noted earlier, that is an unresolved issue. It is plain that the properties were not put on the market as required. However, the wife did not seek to enforce them.
More importantly, that conduct did not bear upon the wife’s decision to appeal the characterisation of the orders made by the magistrate. The appeal has been wholly unsuccessful.
The wife will pay the costs as sought by the husband.
I certify that the preceding fifty-one (51) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Aldridge. Associate:
Dated: 18 August 2022
2
2
0