Oppenheim and Oppenheim

[2013] FamCA 834

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

OPPENHEIM & OPPENHEIM [2013] FamCA 834

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURE

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Oppenheim

RESPONDENT: Mr Oppenheim

FILE NUMBER: MLC 5520 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 4 October 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 4 October 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Hession

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Berry Family Law

THE RESPONDENT: In person

Orders

1. That BY CONSENT there be orders in accordance with the minutes of proposed orders marked Exhibit “A” sealed and attached hereto AND IT IS DIRECTED that such minutes remain upon the Court file.

2. That the solicitor for the wife engross the minutes and deliver them by electronic transmission to my Associate within 7 days.

3. That the reasons this day be transcribed and be placed on the court file.

4. That all outstanding applications are otherwise dismissed.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 5520 of 2013

Ms Oppenheim

Applicant

And

Mr Oppenheim

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The Registrar was not satisfied that the proposed orders of the parties represented a just and equitable outcome. Having regard to what I have heard and which has been recorded on the transcript, this is clearly a case where the contributions of the wife significantly outweigh those of the husband and having regard to the fact that the husband has had advice, he would understand that the Court looks at matters on the basis of the provisions in section 79 of the Family Law Act.

2. There are significant problems here for the wife, in terms of one of the children and there is also a child under the age of 18 years, anyway and there is no suggestion of any child support.  These things are always very subjective and there is clearly no right or wrong answer, but the outcome seems to me to be within the range of possible outcomes.

3. Having regard to all of those factors, I am satisfied that these orders are just and equitable in the circumstances.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 4 October 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  28 October 2013