Parsi & Zomorod

Case [2021] FamCA 240

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Parsi & Zomorod [2021] FamCA 240

File number(s): SYC 1965 of 2021
Judgment of: HENDERSON J
Date of judgment: 28 April 2021
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim property – where the respondent de-facto husband agreed to the continuing of injunctions made in March 2021 pending further order and to provide further and ongoing disclosure – where the applicant de-facto wife seeks an interim dollar for dollar costs order and for the de-facto husband to be restrained from leaving the Commonwealth of Australia – where applicant de-facto wife in a superior financial position to that of the respondent de-facto husband – where any interim costs order if made could not be reversed – no evidentiary basis upon which an order restraining the respondent de-facto husband from leaving Australia could be made – interim application otherwise dismissed.
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79
Cases cited:

Beamish & Coburn (Deceased) (2021) FLC 94-005

Medlow & Medlow (2016) FLC 93-692

Pilkvist & Coburn (Deceased) [2020] FamCA 92

Strahan & Strahan (interim property orders) (2011) FLC 93-466
Number of paragraphs: 74
Date of hearing: 21 April 2021
Place: Sydney
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Lethbridge SC
Solicitor for the Applicant: Mills Oakley Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Schonell SC
Solicitor for the Respondent: York Law Family Law Specialists

ORDERS

SYC 1965 of 2021
BETWEEN:

MS PARSI

Applicant
AND:

MR ZOMOROD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

HENDERSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

28 APRIL 2021

BY CONSENT THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The interim injunctive orders made by his Honour Deputy Chief Justice McClelland by consent on 30 March 2021 are to continue pending further order.

2.That within twenty-eight (28) days the Respondent provide the following documents by way of disclosure:

(a)Original B Pty Ltd shareholders agreement, and any subsequent documents varying or amending same;

(b)B Pty Ltd statutory accounts for 2016 to date;

(c)Documents in respect of informal or formal valuations of B Pty Ltd for the purposes of capital raising, including but not limited to term sheets, convertible notes, simple agreements for future equity and subscription agreements;

(d)Statements for all bank accounts in which B Pty Ltd holds an interest for the period 9 November 2016 to date;

(e)A copy of the loan ledger and loan agreement/s between B Pty Ltd and the Respondent;

(f)A copy of the loan ledger and loan agreement/s between and the Respondent and his parents;

(g)Statements for his Commonwealth Bank account ending #...98 for the period 1 January 2017 to 22 October 2018, and for the period 23 October 2020 to date;

(h)Statements for his Commonwealth Bank account ending #...03 for the period 1 January 2017 to 11 November 2018, and for the period 12 February 2021 to date;

(i)Statements for his Commonwealth Bank account ending #...21 for the period 1 January 2017 to 16 October 2018, and for the period 12 February 2021 to date;

(j)Statements for his Commonwealth Bank account ending #...14 for the period 1 January 2017 to 5 August…

Continue reading Parsi & Zomorod

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Parsi & Zomorod [2021] FamCA 240
Case
[2021] FamCA 240
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Parsi & Zomorod, heard before Henderson J in the Family Court of Australia, the applicant de facto wife sought interim orders against the respondent de facto husband. The dispute concerned property and related financial matters arising from the de facto relationship. The applicant requested that existing injunctive orders, initially made in March 2021, continue pending further order, and that the respondent provide further and ongoing disclosure. Additionally, the applicant sought an interim dollar for dollar costs order and an order restraining the respondent from leaving the Commonwealth of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether to continue the interim injunctive orders and compel further disclosure from the respondent. It also had to consider the applicant's requests for an interim costs order and a travel restriction on the respondent. The court's determination of these matters was informed by the relative financial positions of the parties and the evidentiary basis for the requested orders.

Henderson J reasoned that the respondent had consented to the continuation of the interim injunctive orders and to provide the specified disclosure, and therefore these orders were made by consent. However, the court found no evidentiary basis to support an order restraining the respondent from leaving Australia, particularly given the dismissal of recent assault charges and the return of his passport. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant was in a superior financial position to the respondent, and any interim costs order made in her favour could not be reversed, suggesting a lack of justification for such an order at this stage.

Consequently, the court ordered that the interim injunctive orders made on 30 March 2021 continue pending further order, and that the respondent provide the specified documents by way of disclosure within twenty-eight days. The application for an interim dollar for dollar costs order and the application to restrain the respondent from leaving Australia were otherwise dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

SYC 1965 of 2021

BETWEEN:

MS PARSI

Applicant

AND:

MR ZOMOROD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

HENDERSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

28 APRIL 2021

BY CONSENT THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The interim injunctive orders made by his Honour Deputy Chief Justice McClelland by consent on 30 March 2021 are to continue pending further order.

2. That within twenty-eight (28) days the Respondent provide the following documents by way of disclosure:

(a) Original B Pty Ltd shareholders agreement, and any subsequent documents varying or amending same;

(b) B Pty Ltd statutory accounts for 2016 to date;

(c) Documents in respect of informal or formal valuations of B Pty Ltd for the purposes of capital raising, including but not limited to term sheets, convertible notes, simple agreements for future equity and subscription agreements;

(d) Statements for all bank accounts in which B Pty Ltd holds an interest for the period 9 November 2016 to date;

(e) A copy of the loan ledger and loan agreement/s between B Pty Ltd and the Respondent;

(f) A copy of the loan ledger and loan agreement/s between and the Respondent and his parents;

(g) Statements for his Commonwealth Bank account ending #...98 for the period 1 January 2017 to 22 October 2018, and for the period 23 October 2020 to date;

(h) Statements for his Commonwealth Bank account ending #...03 for the period 1 January 2017 to 11 November 2018, and for the period 12 February 2021 to date;

(i) Statements for his Commonwealth Bank account ending #...21 for the period 1 January 2017 to 16 October 2018, and for the period 12 February 2021 to date;

(j) Statements for his Commonwealth Bank account ending #...14 for the period 1 January 2017 to 5 August 2018, and for the period 6 February 2021 to date;

(k) Statements for his H Bank accounts ending #...36 and #...69 for the period 1 January 2017 to 31 August 2020;

(l) Statements for his J Bank account/s for the period 1 January 2017 to the date of compliance with this order; and

(m) Copies of all documents and correspondence between B Pty Ltd, or any employee or agent acting on behalf of B Pty Ltd, and the Respondent in respect of the Respondent being ‘standing down’ from his position at B Pty Ltd from November 2020 to date.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:

3. The Application in a Case filed by the applicant de-facto wife on 19 March 2021 is otherwise dismissed.

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 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Further, I note this matter had been given a priority listing in part due to the applicant’s claim for interim spousal maintenance maintained before the Deputy Chief Justice on 30 March 2021 in circumstances where she had already secured employment. When these facts were revealed and after analysing the evidence it was clear this priority listing was not justified on any basis given the respondent's consent to continue the injunctive orders made by consent on 30 March 2021 and her employment on 22 March 2021.EVIDENCE FOR THE INTERIM HEARING For the applicant: (1)Application in a Case filed 19 March 2021;(2)Affidavit of the applicant filed 19 March 2021;(3)Financial Statement of the applicant filed 19 April 2021;(4)Affidavit of solicitor Susan Warda filed 19 March 2021 in support of the interim costs application;(5)Case Outline of Mr Lethbridge SC filed 21 April 2021;(6)Annexures attached to the applicant’s affidavit;(7)Applicant’s Exhibit 1, a letter dated 15 April 2021 from the applicant's lawyers to the respondent's lawyers requesting “further particulars and documents as follows…" For the respondent: (1)Response filed 14 April 2021;(2)Affidavit of the respondent filed 14 April 2021;(3)Financial Statement of the respondent filed 14 April 2021;(4)Affidavit of Mr C filed 20 April 2021;(5)Case Outline of Mr Schonell SC filed 20 April 2021;(6)Respondent’s Exhibit 1, Orders of Deputy Chief Justice McClelland dated 30 March 2021;(7)Respondent’s Exhibit 2, a bundle of letters between the lawyers of the applicant and respondent dated 9 April 2021, 14 April 2021 and 15 April 2021. SHORT CHRONOLOGY The applicant asserts cohabitation commenced in December 2016 and the respondent says January 2017. Little turns on that timing. Separation occurred in November 2020. There are no children of the relationship. Cohabitation was four years. The respondent is 32 and the applicant is 27 and she is a professional. The respondent created a company, B Proprietary Limited, the Company, in November 2016. The respondent is a professional and has completed a degree. He studied at D University from 2013 to 2014. The friend with whom the respondent commenced the Company with is Mr F. The respondent determined to live permanently in the United States in 2019. The respondent remained living in the United States from 2019 until November 2020 when he and the applicant returned to Australia for a wedding. The applicant went to America in June 2020 and the parties lived in G City. The respondent travelled to and from Australia and America from 2019 until November 2020. Upon the parties’ return to Australia in November 2020 an incident occurred in a hotel and the respondent was charged with assault offences against the applicant, which charges were dismissed after a contested hearing on 3 March 2021. He was also charged with historical assault charges for incidents the applicant asserted occurred in 2019 and they are listed for hearing on 24 June 2021. The respondent was placed on bail in respect of these charges, restrained from leaving the country and was required to surrender his passport. Upon the assault charges resulting from the incident in November 2020 being dismissed on 3 March 2021, the respondent’s passport was returned to him and he is no longer subject to a travel ban.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.