FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Pericles & Hopman (No. 2) [2021] FamCA 446
File number(s): MLC 9624 2016 Judgment of: BENNETT J Date of judgment: 22 June 2021 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – JUDGMENTS – stay pending appeal. Cases cited: Aldridge & Keaton (Stay Appeal) [2009] FamCAFC 106
Pericles & Hopman [2021] FamCA 235
Number of paragraphs: 26 Date of hearing: 22 June 2021 Place: Melbourne Solicitor for the Applicant: Lander & Rogers Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Sweeney Solicitor for the Respondent: Unified Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Othen ORDERS
MLC 9624 2016 BETWEEN: MS PERICLES
Applicant
AND: MR HOPMAN
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
BENNETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
11 JUNE 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application in a Case filed by the husband, Mr Hopman, on 10 June 2021 be dismissed.
2.The payment made to satisfy order 1 of the orders made 23 April 2021 be paid to the Trust account of Lander and Rogers Solicitors subject to the following conditions;
3.The amount received by the Respondent be reduced to the total sum of $2,253,805 (it being noted that this is not necessarily the figure reflected in paragraphs 9,10,11,35, and 36 of the wife’s submissions);
4.The balance outstanding be invested for and on behalf of the Respondent in an interest bearing account pending the outcome of the Appeal lodged by the Applicant on 21 May 2021 and only be released to the Respondent to be applied to;
5.Meet legal costs incurred by her; and To complete the purchase of any real property purchased hereafter and registered in her sole name and provided that the equity in that real property is not less than 70% of the purchase price.
6.If the wife does acquire property as an anticipated by paragraph 2(ii)(b) then she is restrained by injunction pending the outcome of the appeal from selling, transferring assigning or otherwise dealing with her interest in such property so as to lessen her equity in the property after she acquires it unless the Court otherwise orders or the husband consents in writing.
7.The costs be reserved for determination at the same time as the wife’s application for costs of the proceedings at first instance.
IT IS DIRECTED:
8.That the minute of proposed orders of the husband be marked Exhibit “H1” and remain on the Court file.
9.That the minute of proposed orders of the wife be marked Exhibit “W1” and remain on the Court file.
10.That my reasons for decision this day be transcribed and when settled placed on the Court file and a copy provided to the parties.
11.I am making orders in the terms of the minute proposed by the wife as amended. However, in paragraph – the reference to 50 per cent will be a reference to 70 per cent.
12.Costs be reserved for determination at the same time as the wife’s application for costs of the proceeding at first instance.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This…
Continue reading Pericles & Hopman (No. 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Pericles & Hopman (No. 2) [2021] FamCA 446
- Case
- [2021] FamCA 446
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court was how to manage funds paid to satisfy the earlier orders, specifically whether to release the full amount to the respondent wife or to retain a portion pending the outcome of the applicant wife's appeal. The Court was required to determine the conditions under which any payment made should be released and to consider whether any restraint should be placed on the wife's acquisition or dealing with property.
Bennett J dismissed the husband's application. The Court ordered that a payment made to satisfy the 23 April 2021 orders be paid into the trust account of Lander and Rogers Solicitors. This sum was to be reduced to $2,253,805, with the outstanding balance to be invested in an interest-bearing account for the respondent. Release of these funds was restricted to meeting the wife's legal costs and completing the purchase of real property registered in her sole name, provided her equity in that property was not less than 70% of the purchase price. Furthermore, if the wife acquired property, she was restrained by injunction from dealing with her interest in a manner that would lessen her equity, unless the Court ordered otherwise or the husband consented in writing. Costs were reserved for determination at the same time as the wife's application for costs of the proceedings at first instance.
Orders
Orders of the court
MLC 9624 2016
BETWEEN:
MS PERICLES
Applicant
AND:
MR HOPMAN
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
BENNETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
11 JUNE 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The Application in a Case filed by the husband, Mr Hopman, on 10 June 2021 be dismissed.
2. The payment made to satisfy order 1 of the orders made 23 April 2021 be paid to the Trust account of Lander and Rogers Solicitors subject to the following conditions;
3. The amount received by the Respondent be reduced to the total sum of $2,253,805 (it being noted that this is not necessarily the figure reflected in paragraphs 9,10,11,35, and 36 of the wife’s submissions);
4. The balance outstanding be invested for and on behalf of the Respondent in an interest bearing account pending the outcome of the Appeal lodged by the Applicant on 21 May 2021 and only be released to the Respondent to be applied to;
5. Meet legal costs incurred by her; and To complete the purchase of any real property purchased hereafter and registered in her sole name and provided that the equity in that real property is not less than 70% of the purchase price.
6. If the wife does acquire property as an anticipated by paragraph 2(ii)(b) then she is restrained by injunction pending the outcome of the appeal from selling, transferring assigning or otherwise dealing with her interest in such property so as to lessen her equity in the property after she acquires it unless the Court otherwise orders or the husband consents in writing.
7. The costs be reserved for determination at the same time as the wife’s application for costs of the proceedings at first instance.
IT IS DIRECTED:
8. That the minute of proposed orders of the husband be marked Exhibit “H1” and remain on the Court file.
9. That the minute of proposed orders of the wife be marked Exhibit “W1” and remain on the Court file.
10. That my reasons for decision this day be transcribed and when settled placed on the Court file and a copy provided to the parties.
11. I am making orders in the terms of the minute proposed by the wife as amended. However, in paragraph – the reference to 50 per cent will be a reference to 70 per cent.
12. Costs be reserved for determination at the same time as the wife’s application for costs of the proceeding at first instance.
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
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.