Paintal and Paintal (No 2) - [2019] FamCA 624

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PAINTAL & PAINTAL (NO. 2)

[2019] FamCA 624

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Expedition – the benefits of prompt resolution – general inability of the court to provide prompt resolution – need to establish a basis for giving priority within the list – Interim property – Interim international travel – risks of non-return – Interim allocation of parental responsibility to support private schooling.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC and 79

Lees & Halstead and Anor [2018] FamCA 970
Strahan & Strahan (Interim Property Orders) (2011) FLC 93-466

APPLICANT:

Mr Paintal

RESPONDENT:

Ms Paintal

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms L McGregor

FILE NUMBER:

CAC

273

2014

DATE DELIVERED:

5 September 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Canberra

PLACE HEARD:

Canberra

JUDGMENT OF:

Gill J

HEARING DATE:

3 September 2019

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Self-representing

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Women's Legal Centre

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid, ACT

Orders

The Father’s Application in a Case filed on 22 July 2019 is dismissed;
That within 14 days the Father transfer to the Mother the whole of the Father’s right, title and interest in the motor vehicle 1 registered number …;
That within 14 days both parties sign all documents and do all things necessary to effect the Vehicle Transfer to the wife, including the transfer of any insurance policies relating to the vehicle (Vehicle Transfer Forms);
That within 7 days of receiving the signed Vehicle Transfer Forms from the Father, the Mother’s solicitor provide evidence of the Vehicle Transfer to the Father;
The Mother’s Response to an Application in a Case filed on 5 August 2019 is otherwise dismissed.

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 Paintal & Paintal 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 CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: CAC 273 of 2014

Mr Paintal

Applicant

And

Ms Paintal

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

By his Application in a Case filed 22 July 2019 the Father seeks orders to permit the child of the relationship, X, who is seven years old, to travel to India to visit his family for a period of up to three weeks in October 2019. He also seeks to have sole parental responsibility in relation to education, to enable him to enrol X in a private school and finally he seeks orders for expedition of the final hearing.
The Mother opposes each of these orders and seeks interim or partial property orders to transfer the motor vehicle 1 that she currently…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Paintal and Paintal (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Paintal and Paintal (No 2) [2019] FamCA 624
Case: [2019] FamCA 624
Decision Date: 5 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Paintal and Paintal (No 2)*, Gill J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application by the Father concerning property settlement and a response by the Mother. The dispute centred on the division of assets and liabilities between the parties following their separation.

The primary legal issue before the court was how to fairly and equitably distribute the parties' property interests, specifically addressing the ownership and transfer of a motor vehicle. The court was required to determine the Father's application and the Mother's response in light of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Gill J ordered the dismissal of the Father's application. Crucially, the court ordered the Father to transfer his entire right, title, and interest in a specified motor vehicle to the Mother within 14 days. Both parties were directed to execute all necessary documentation to effect this transfer, including any associated insurance policies. The Mother's solicitor was then required to provide evidence of the completed transfer to the Father within 7 days of receiving the relevant forms. The Mother's response to the application was otherwise dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Father’s Application in a Case filed on 22 July 2019 is dismissed;

That within 14 days the Father transfer to the Mother the whole of the Father’s right, title and interest in the motor vehicle 1 registered number …;

That within 14 days both parties sign all documents and do all things necessary to effect the Vehicle Transfer to the wife, including the transfer of any insurance policies relating to the vehicle (Vehicle Transfer Forms);

That within 7 days of receiving the signed Vehicle Transfer Forms from the Father, the Mother’s solicitor provide evidence of the Vehicle Transfer to the Father;

The Mother’s Response to an Application in a Case filed on 5 August 2019 is otherwise dismissed.

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

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.