FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| PAXTON & PAXTON | [2016] FCCA 1689 |
| Catchwords: STANFORD v STANFORD – Principles discussed in detail – review of authorities – not just and equitable to divide assets. COSTS – Ordered against applicant – unrealistic for applicant to have brought this proceeding. PRECEDENT – Principle of stare decisis – single judges are bound by the High Court’s decision in Stanford v Stanford – single judges are not permitted to deviate from it. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.79, 106(A) Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), r.6.15(3) |
| Cases cited: AGC Guarantee Corporation Ltd v De Jager & Anor [1984] VR 483 The Honourable Justice J D Heydon, ‘Judicial activism and the death of the rule of law’ (2003) 23 Aust Bar Rev 110 |
| Applicant: | MR PAXTON AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF MR A PAXTON (DECEASED) |
| Respondent: | MS PAXTON |
| File Number: | MLC 7138 of 2014 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Wilson |
| Hearing date: | 24 February 2016 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 24 February 2016 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 7 July 2016 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms J Swann |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Alpass and Associates |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr E Hall |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Beaumont Lawyers |
ORDERS
The respondent Ms Paxton retain for her sole use and benefit the real property situate at and known as Property M being the whole of the land more particularly described in Certificate of Title Volume (omitted) Folio (omitted) (“the real property”).
Within 7…
Continue reading Paxton & Paxton
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Paxton & Paxton [2016] FCCA 1689
- Case
- [2016] FCCA 1689
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was just and equitable to divide the assets of the marriage, specifically the former matrimonial home, given the circumstances of the parties and the precedent set by the High Court in *Stanford v Stanford*. The court was also required to determine the appropriate costs order and consider the application of the principle of *stare decisis* in relation to the *Stanford* decision.
The court applied the principles discussed in *Stanford v Stanford*, which established that a property division is not automatically just and equitable simply because a marriage has ended. Judge Wilson noted that single judges are bound by the High Court's decision in *Stanford v Stanford* and are not permitted to deviate from it. In this instance, the court found that it was not just and equitable to divide the assets.
Consequently, the court ordered that the respondent wife retain the former matrimonial home for her sole use and benefit. The applicant, as executor of the deceased husband's estate, was ordered to withdraw the caveat lodged over the property at his expense. The court also ordered that each party be solely entitled to all other property in their possession, with specific provisions regarding bank accounts, superannuation, insurance policies, and liabilities. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs, and all extant applications were dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The respondent Ms Paxton retain for her sole use and benefit the real property situate at and known as Property M being the whole of the land more particularly described in Certificate of Title Volume (omitted) Folio (omitted) (“the real property”).
2.
Within 7 days of the date of this order, the applicant Mr Paxton as Executor of the Estate of Mr A Paxton (Deceased) withdraw, at his expense, the caveat lodged over the real property being caveat number (omitted) lodged by the applicant’s legal practitioners and provide to the respondent’s solicitors a copy of the Withdrawal of Caveat.
3.
Each party shall do all such things and sign all such papers and documents that are necessary to give effect to the orders provided that in the event a party unreasonably fails or refuses to sign pursuant to these orders, then a Registrar of the Court pursuant to s.106(A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is authorised to sign any such document on behalf of the defaulting party.
4.
Unless otherwise specified in these orders and save for the purposes of enforcing monies due under these or any subsequent orders:
(a) each party be solely entitled to the exclusion of the other to all other property (including choses in action) in the possession of such party as at the date of these orders including all motor vehicles;
(b) monies standing to the credit of the parties are to remain the property of that party;
(c) each party forego any claims they may have to any superannuation benefits belonging to or earned by the other party;
(d) insurance policies remain the sole property of the life insured named therein;
(e) each party be solely liable for and indemnify the other against any liability encumbering any item of property to which that party is entitled pursuant to these orders; and
(f) any joint tenancy of the parties in any real or personal estate is hereby expressly severed.
5.
The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.
6.
All extant applications be dismissed.
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.