Pirani & Pirani (No 2) - [2023] FedCFamC1F 483

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Pirani & Pirani (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1F 483

File number(s): SYC 3987 of 2023

Judgment of: SCHONELL J

Date of judgment: 14 June 2023

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – Where the wife sought urgent spousal maintenance pursuant to s 77 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where ex parte orders have been and the husband has not yet had an opportunity to respond and file material – Where the Court is satisfied that the wife is in a parlous financial position – Order made for the husband to pay a lump sum amount of $20,000, which the Court is satisfied is reasonable and the husband has capacity to pay.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 77

Cases cited: Pirani & Pirani [2023] FedCFamC1F 463

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 21

Date of hearing: 14 June 2023

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Givney

Solicitor for the Applicant: New South Lawyers

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Barkus Doolan Winning

The Second Respondent: Did not participate

The Third Respondent: Did not participate

The Fourth Respondent: Did not participate

The Fifth Respondent: Did not participate

The Sixth Respondent: Did not participate
ORDERS

SYC 3987 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MS PIRANI

Applicant

AND:
MR PIRANI

First Respondent

B PTY LTD

Second Respondent

C PTY LTD (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

order made by:

SCHONELL J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 JUNE 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The first respondent husband pay by 4.00 pm 21 June 2023 to the wife, by way of urgent spousal maintenance, the sum of $20,000 to a bank account to be nominated by the wife.

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 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Pirani & Pirani has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SCHONELL J:

The matter listed before the Court this morning is but a continuation of proceedings that first commenced on 6 June 2023 and came before the Court on 7 June 2023 when the Court made a series of ex parte orders.
The making of an ex parte order is one that should only be made in what has been variously described in…

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 Pirani & Pirani (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Pirani & Pirani (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC1F 483
Case: [2023] FedCFamC1F 483
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pirani & Pirani (No 2) involved Ms Pirani, the applicant, seeking urgent spousal maintenance from Mr Pirani, the first respondent, under section 77 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The matter was heard by Schonell J in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1). Ex parte orders had been made on 7 June 2023, and the current hearing on 14 June 2023 was to determine the wife's application for a lump sum of $150,000 in urgent spousal maintenance. The husband had not yet had an opportunity to respond and file material, and the court had to ensure that he was given the earliest opportunity to present his case.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the wife was in immediate need of financial assistance, and if so, what amount would be reasonable under the circumstances. The court had to consider the wife's financial situation, her immediate needs, and the husband's capacity to pay the requested amount. Schonell J found that the wife was in a parlous financial position, with no income and limited assets, and her expenses far exceeded her means. The husband, on the other hand, had a significant capacity to pay, as evidenced by his gambling habits and the substantial sums he had previously provided to the wife.

Schonell J concluded that the wife was indeed in immediate need of financial assistance, and the circumstances rendered it not practical to determine the exact amount of maintenance at that time. The court ordered the husband to pay a lump sum of $20,000 by 4.00 pm on 21 June 2023, considering it a reasonable amount under the circumstances. The court's decision was based on the wife's immediate financial need, her inability to support herself, and the husband's capacity to pay.

In summary, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) granted the wife's application for urgent spousal maintenance in the amount of $20,000, to be paid by the husband by 4.00 pm on 21 June 2023. The court found that the wife was in immediate need of financial assistance, and the ordered amount was reasonable given her parlous financial situation and the husband's capacity to pay.

Orders