Pierce and D’Cruz

[2010] FamCA 84

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PIERCE & D’CRUZ [2010] FamCA 84

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application for distribution of funds

APPLICANT: Mr Pierce and Mr C Pierce

RESPONDENT: Ms D’Cruz

FILE NUMBER: MLF 3135 of 2004

DATE DELIVERED: 5 February 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Dessau J

HEARING DATE: 5 February 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Splatt

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Taylor Splatt & Partners

COUNSEL FOR THE HUSBAND: Mr Kiernan

SOLICITOR FOR THE HUSBAND: Griffin Sweeney Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT WIFE: Mr Brown SC with Mr Dickson

SOLICITORS FOR THE RESPONDENT WIFE: Kennedy Wisewoulds

Orders

1. That all extant applications shall be adjourned to a date to be fixed before Justice Dessau after delivery of judgment by the Full Court in relation to the appeals against the orders of 29 October 2008.

2. That all questions of costs of this day shall be reserved to the adjourned hearing.

3. That a transcript of my reasons given this day shall be prepared with priority and the Appeals Registrar Marrone is requested to respectfully draw the reasons to the attention of the Full Court.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Pierce & D’Cruz is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLF 3135 of 2004

MR PIERCE AND C PIERCE

Applicant

And

MS D’CRUZ

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a case that I heard between 16 and 29 May 2008.  I gave judgment on 19 September 2008, and subsequently made orders on 29 October 2008.  Since then, the husband and his father, C Pierce, have appealed to the Full Court by way of Notice of Appeal filed on 26 November 2008.  As I understand it, the appeal was heard in July 2009, and the Full Court has not yet handed down its decision. 

2. In the meantime, urgent applications have come before me today: urgent in the sense that the Application in a Case that has initiated today’s appearance, filed by the husband’s father C Pierce, essentially seeks the distribution of moneys to fund legal proceedings and taxation and legal advice in relation to his dealings with the Australian Taxation Office.  The husband, Mr Pierce, also seeks funds to that end, and there is an Application by a solicitor, acting on behalf of the husband, to be put in funds.      

3. There is consensus today that those applications cannot proceed while the Full Court’s decision is pending.  Counsel have made enquiries from the Appeals Registrar, but there is no news as to when that decision will be delivered.

4. Once the outcome of the Appeal is known, I can then entertain these applications (as relevant) and applications by the wife in relation to orders as to other funds that she claims have been dissipated, and the potential orders that flow from that. 

   ORDERS DELIVERED

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Dessau

Associate: 

Date:  5 February 2010