Petridis & Petridis - [2021] FamCA 154

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Petridis & Petridis [2021] FamCA 154

File number(s): HBC 133 of 2018

Judgment of: MCCLELLAND DCJ

Date of judgment: 19 March 2021

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Injunctions – Leave for bankrupt to appear for limited purpose – Where the husband seeks ambiguous orders injuncting the Trustee in Bankruptcy from acting as a vendor in the sale of the properties – Where the husband has an application on foot to set aside or annul his bankruptcy – Application dismissed.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79(12)

Cases cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57
Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618.

Number of paragraphs: 17

Date of hearing: 19 March 2021

Place: Sydney by web conference

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Petridis appearing in person by telephone

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr McKenna by video

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ogilvie Jennings

Counsel for the Fourth Respondent: Mr Trezise by video

Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent: Dobson Mitchell Allport

Solicitor for the Fifth Respondent: Ms Scolyer of Murdoch Clarke by video

Counsel for the Sixth Respondent: Mr F Petridis appearing in person by video
ORDERS

HBC 133 of 2018

BETWEEN:
MR PETRIDIS

Applicant

AND:
MS PETRIDIS
First Respondent

L PTY LTD (A.C.N. …)

Second Respondent

M PTY LTD (A.C.N. …)

Third Respondent

(and others named in the Schedule)

ORDER MADE BY:

MCCLELLAND DCJ

DATE OF ORDER:

19 MARCH 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Applicant husband is granted leave to intervene in these proceedings today for the purpose, and sole purpose, of making his Application in accordance with the Application in a Case filed 5 March 2021.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.The Fourth Respondent Trustee in Bankruptcy opposed leave being given to the First Respondent husband to intervene for the purpose of making his Application.
B.Leave to intervene given in respect to today’s proceedings is leave to intervene for the purpose of this particular Application filed on 5 March 2021 and leave has not been given to the husband to intervene generally at this stage.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:
2.The Application in a Case filed 5 March 2021 is 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).
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Petridis & Petridis has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
McClelland DCJ:

These proceedings concern an Application in a Case filed 5 March 2021 by Mr Petridis (“the husband”). The substantive proceedings concern an Application for final property orders between Ms Petridis…

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 Petridis & Petridis

Details

AGLC: Petridis & Petridis [2021] FamCA 154
Case: [2021] FamCA 154
Decision Date: 19 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Petridis & Petridis*, Mr. Petridis, the applicant husband, sought to intervene in proceedings involving his former spouse, Ms. Petridis, and various companies. The core of the dispute concerned the husband's application to set aside or annul his bankruptcy, and his related, albeit ambiguous, request for orders injuncting the Trustee in Bankruptcy from acting as a vendor in the sale of certain properties. The Honourable Deputy Chief Judge McClelland presided over the proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant the applicant husband leave to intervene in the proceedings for the limited purpose of making his application concerning the bankruptcy and the sale of properties. The Trustee in Bankruptcy opposed this application for leave.

The court granted the husband leave to intervene, but strictly for the sole purpose of making the specific application filed on 5 March 2021. This leave was not a general intervention in the proceedings. Ultimately, the court dismissed the husband's application in a case filed on 5 March 2021.

Orders

Orders of the court

HBC 133 of 2018

BETWEEN:

MR PETRIDIS

Applicant

AND:

MS PETRIDIS

First Respondent

L PTY LTD (A.C.N. …)

Second Respondent

M PTY LTD (A.C.N. …)

Third Respondent

(and others named in the Schedule)

ORDER MADE BY:

MCCLELLAND DCJ

DATE OF ORDER:

19 MARCH 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Applicant husband is granted leave to intervene in these proceedings today for the purpose, and sole purpose, of making his Application in accordance with the Application in a Case filed 5 March 2021.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

A. The Fourth Respondent Trustee in Bankruptcy opposed leave being given to the First Respondent husband to intervene for the purpose of making his Application.

B. Leave to intervene given in respect to today’s proceedings is leave to intervene for the purpose of this particular Application filed on 5 March 2021 and leave has not been given to the husband to intervene generally at this stage.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:

2. The Application in a Case filed 5 March 2021 is 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

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.

File number(s):	HBC 133 of 2018
Judgment of:	MCCLELLAND DCJ
Date of judgment:	19 March 2021
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Injunctions – Leave for bankrupt to appear for limited purpose – Where the husband seeks ambiguous orders injuncting the Trustee in Bankruptcy from acting as a vendor in the sale of the properties – Where the husband has an application on foot to set aside or annul his bankruptcy – Application dismissed.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79(12)
Cases cited:	Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57 Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618.
Number of paragraphs:	17
Date of hearing:	19 March 2021
Place:	Sydney by web conference
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Petridis appearing in person by telephone
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr McKenna by video
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Ogilvie Jennings
Counsel for the Fourth Respondent:	Mr Trezise by video
Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent:	Dobson Mitchell Allport
Solicitor for the Fifth Respondent:	Ms Scolyer of Murdoch Clarke by video
Counsel for the Sixth Respondent:	Mr F Petridis appearing in person by video

ORDER MADE BY:	MCCLELLAND DCJ
DATE OF ORDER:	19 MARCH 2021