PARADISO and WANGMAYUM - [2016] FCWAM 5

JURISDICTION : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA – 150 TERRACE ROAD

ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: PARADISO and WANGMAYUM [2016] FCWAM 5

CORAM: KAESER M

HEARD: 19 AUGUST 2015

DELIVERED : 11 JANUARY 2016

FILE NO/S: PTW 3658 of 2013

BETWEEN: MS PARADISO
Applicant
AND
MR WANGMAYUM
Respondent

Catchwords:

Property Settlement; undefended; discussion of Stanford principles; orders sought by wife just and equitable.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Self represented litigant
Respondent: There was no appearance by the Respondent

Solicitors:

Applicant: Self Represented Litigant
Respondent: Not Represented

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Amero & Croft [2010] FamCAFC 118
Beneke v Beneke (1996) FLC 92-698
Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116
Duff & Duff (1977) FLC 90-217
Ferguson & Ferguson (1978) FLC 90-500
Hickey & Hickey [2003] FamCA 395; (2003) FLC 93-143
Jones v Skinner (1836) 5 LJ Ch 85
Mallet v Mallet [1984] HCA 21; (1984) 156 CLR 605
Manolis & Manolis (No 2) [2011] FamCAFC 105
Martin & Newton [2011] FamCAFC 233; (2011) FLC 93-490
McLay & McLay (1996) FLC 92-667
N and N, unreported, 10 June 1992
Norman & Norman [2010] FamCAFC 66
Re S by her Case Guardian R and S by his Case Guardian S [2010] FCWAM 26
Rogers & Rogers (1980) FLC 90-874
Stanford & Stanford [2012] FamCAFC 1; (2012) FLC 93-495
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Teal v Teal [2010] FamCAFC 120
Trustee of the property of Lemnos, A Bankrupt & Lemnos (2009) FLC 93-394
Waters & Jurek (1995) FLC 92-635
Woodcock v Woodcock (1997) FLC 92-739
Woollams & Woollams [2004] FCWA 32; (2004) FLC 93-195

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT - PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

Background

1The husband in these proceedings was born [in] 1979 and the wife was born [in] 1983.
2The parties started living together in December 2005. They were married [in] 2008 and separated on 1 October 2011. They therefore cohabited for a period of just under six years. They were divorced on 1 October 2013.
3The wife’s application for property settlement orders proceeded on an undefended basis pursuant to orders made on 18 November 2014. There was, unsurprisingly, no appearance by the respondent husband at the trial. He also did not attend the Conciliation Conference listed for 8 April 2015.

Wife’s evidence and submissions

4The wife relied upon her affidavit filed on 3 October 2014 and her Form 13 financial statement filed the same date. Her Form 1 application set out the orders that were still sought by her at trial. She clarified her position at the hearing in that she no longer sought to amend her final orders and effectively sought orders for:
1.That the husband pay to the wife the sum of $31,158 within 12 months; and
2.That each party retain the motor vehicles and furniture and household contents presently in their possession or control.

5The wife also filed Papers…

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 PARADISO and WANGMAYUM

Details

AGLC: PARADISO and WANGMAYUM [2016] FCWAM 5
Case: [2016] FCWAM 5
Decision Date: 11 JANUARY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Family Court of Australia was an undefended property settlement application between Paradiso and Wangmayum. The primary issue at hand was the division of the couple's property following their separation. The court was tasked with determining the principles that should guide the distribution of the assets accumulated during their marriage.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included the applicability of the principles laid out in the case of Stanford v Stanford, which focus on the fairness and justice of the division of property. The wife sought an order that would reflect the just and equitable distribution of the assets, taking into account the contributions made by each party and the needs of both parties post-separation. The court was required to consider whether the wife's application aligned with these principles.

In delivering its judgment, the court noted that the wife's application was based on the principles of fairness and justice. It examined the contributions of each party to the marriage, including both financial and non-financial contributions. The court found that the wife's application was in line with the principles set out in Stanford v Stanford, and that the orders sought were just and equitable. The court granted the wife's application for an order that reflected the fair distribution of the property.

Orders