Papadopoulos and Papadopoulos and Ors

[2008] FamCA 1186

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PAPADOPOULOS & PAPADOPOULOS AND ORS [2008] FamCA 1186

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Consent orders

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT WIFE: Ms Papadopoulos

RESPONDENT HUSBAND: Mr Papadopoulos

SECONDNAMED RESPONDENT: P Pty Ltd

THIRDNAMED RESPONDENT: T Pty Ltd

FILE NUMBER: MLF 11340 of 1995

DATE DELIVERED: 23 December 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 23 December 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr M. Parker

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Lander & Rogers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 HUSBAND:

Mr J.W. St John SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT

HUSBAND:

T J Mulvany & Co

COUNSEL FOR THE SECONDNAMED AND THIRDNAMED RESPONDENTS: Mr R. Bradshaw

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECONDNAMED AND THIRDNAMED RESPONDENTS: Tolhurst Druce & Emerson

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 husband engross the minutes and deliver them by electronic transmission to my Associate within 7 days.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Papadopoulos & Papdopoulos and Ors is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLF 11340 of 1995

MS PAPADOPOULOS

Applicant

And

MR PAPADOPOULOS

Respondent Husband

And

P PTY LTD

Secondnamed Respondent

And

T PTY LTD

Thirdnamed Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a matter that has been put into the list today on the basis that it resolves all outstanding issues between the parties.

2. I have had the responsibility of managing the matter for over a year now and as a result of not only reading the material filed from time to time but also hearing the various submissions and arguments on behalf of the parties, I am comfortable in saying that I understand exactly what the parties were arguing about and what the financial ramifications of the various orders would have been. 

3. It is the function of the court to make orders if the court is satisfied that they are just and equitable and having regard to this particular case, I agree with Mr Parker that it is somewhat difficult to be precise in percentage terms about exactly what the order means, but it is clearly not only a commercially real decision, but it is also one that I think is probably well within the range of possible outcomes. 

4. In those circumstances I am content to declare that the orders are just and equitable.

I certify that the preceding Four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin

Associate: 

Date:  5 January 2009