Piroozi and Piroozi

[2020] FamCA 539

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PIROOZI & PIROOZI [2020] FamCA 539

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Application in a Case by the wife for reimbursement of expenditure for the sale of a property, spousal maintenance, interim property orders, money to fund her legal costs and child support departure orders pursuant to s 124 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) – Lump sum amount ordered to enable the husband to complete the purchase of a property – Parties to provide an agreed minute of Order to the Court – Leave granted to restore matter on short notice – Costs reserved

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Piroozi

RESPONDENT: Mr Piroozi

FILE NUMBER: SYC 4175 of 2019

DATE DELIVERED: 23 March 2020

PLACE DELIVERED: Hobart

PLACE HEARD: Hobart

JUDGMENT OF: Benjamin J

HEARING DATE: 23 March 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Cummings

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Mills Oakley

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Batey

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Burke & Mangan

Orders

IT IS NOTED

1. The amount of $945,000 be forthwith made available to the husband to enable the completion of the purchase of his property on 24 April 2020.

2. The parties forward to my administrative associate a minute of agreed order giving effect to this noting that the substantive order is not agreed, but the detail of the order should be agreed.

3. Leave be given for the matter to be restored before me on the giving of twenty four (24) hours’ notice to the parties and to the Court.

4. Costs of both parties are reserved. 

IT IS DIRECTED

1. A copy of the reasons for these orders be taken out and placed on the Court file.

IT IS CERTIFIED

1. Pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Piroozi & Piroozi has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

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 r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT HOBART

FILE NUMBER: SYC 4175 of 2019

Ms Piroozi

Applicant

And

Mr Piroozi

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Ms Piroozi (‘the wife’) and Mr Piroozi (‘the husband’) are engaged in proceedings in the Family Court relating to property and child support.  The wife comes to this Court seeking orders in relation to:

   (a)the reimbursement of expenditure in respect of the sale of the parties’ property at Suburb B;

   (b)lump sum spousal maintenance;

   (c)money to fund her legal costs; and

   (d)child support and departure orders and orders under s 124 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth).

2. In dealing with this matter I engaged in extensive communication with the parties’ competent counsel during the course of this interim hearing by telephone.  It seems to me the issues have narrowed significantly.  It is agreed between the parties that the children’s school fees are currently up to date and ought to be paid out of a fund of about $2.5 million into the future pending the hearing of these parties’ proceedings.  I intend to make an order to that effect. 

3. The wife is seeking reimbursement of some $31,320.91 being the monies she expended to enable sale of the Suburb B property.  The husband does not seriously oppose that application, but says that it will still be open and it is still open for the husband to investigate how, why and where those funds were expended.  So that narrowed the issues a little bit further.  Last year, the husband entered into a contract to purchase a property for just under $1 million, and he seeks sufficient monies just under $1 million to enable him to settle the sale of that property on 24 April 2020.  The husband says, and I accept, that the stamp duty has been paid, and, no doubt, there will be inquiries as to where those funds came from.  The house is to be unencumbered.  The wife’s submissions were that she was given no notice of that transaction, that she is caught in a home where she is paying $1,855 rental per week, and the husband will be living in a home which is essentially unencumbered. 

4. That may well be the case.  However, when I make the orders I will make them for the payment of that amount to enable the settlement. I will make orders restraining the husband from in any way encumbering that new property and I will note that the wife has a significant equitable interest in the money that was used to fund that purchase, which is sufficient, in my view, to base a caveat.  If at the end of the day, there is insufficient money left out of the proceeds of sale of the Suburb B property, it may well be at that stage that the home purchased by the husband will need to be sold.  However, that will be a matter for the hearing when and if it arises. 

5. The husband, in essence, agrees to the orders sought by the wife with regard to disclosure subject to three things, which I will address in my orders.  The first, is that 14 days in the circumstances in which Australia currently finds itself is, in my view, inadequate and I will allow three months.  Second, the husband asserts that much of this material has been provided and I will be directing that the husband, if he does not supply the material, must inform the wife when, how and where that material was provided, and, finally, if the husband asserts he does not have possession or control of the documents, he must set that out in accordance with the normal principles.  I am then left with the wife’s lump sum application for child support, the reimbursement sum sought by the wife of $35,284, the wife’s claim for lump sum maintenance and her claim for legal costs.  I will deal with the legal cost claim first.

6. The wife seeks $100,000 by way of an interim property order with regard to legal costs.  The husband does not seriously oppose that, but says, in essence, “If you give her that sum, I should get the same sum”, when using concepts of equity and fairness and the like.  The wife’s response to that is that the husband has a business.  It is a viable business.  It earns significant money and she asserts, given the evidence provided in her affidavit material, that there is some doubt as to the veracity of the husband in regards to whether he made full disclosure.  This case is not going to be resolved in the immediate future.  I had great hopes that it would be included in the Sydney Blitz that was or still is to occur in August, although I have some doubt that will occur, and the end result of that may mean there is significantly more delay for these parties. 

7. I note the material in the affidavit in relation to the husband’s previous solicitors.  I note that he has a new solicitor.  Given the circumstances in this case, I intend to make an order for payment of $100,000 out of the $2.5 million by way of an interim property order to each of the husband and the wife to enable them to meet their legal costs.

8. As to the wife’s lump sum maintenance, it falls into a number of areas.  The first, is the cost of her accommodation.  The wife has entered into a lease where she pays rent of some $1,855 a week, which is about $48,000 for six months and about $96,000 for 12 months.  It seems to me appropriate that whilst that may be a high rent given the circumstances of the parties, it seems to me that the wife, and, consequently, the children, should have some security in accommodation as, dare I note, will the husband have for the next 12 months, and, as such, I am prepared to make a lump sum maintenance order, including the sum I am going to order, the sum of $96,000 to meet her rental for the next 12 month.  However, it will be necessary for the wife to consider in 12 months’ time, or at some time over the next 12 months, whether she or the family can afford to continue paying rent at that level. 

9. As I said to counsel, I have taken general judicial notice of the circumstances that beset Australia at the present time.  I do not take that in relation to the particular circumstance of these particular parties.  I also include in that the power for the wife to approach the landlord and seek an adjustment of rent and have some discussion about reducing rent or having the rent suspended for a period of time, but, as I said, I intend to include that in that sum.  I am also concerned that as the parties continue this conflict, the amount left over will be slowly fettered away, and eventually the parties will have little or nothing to argue about, but that is a matter for them. 

10. In relation to the remaining applications of the wife, one is the repayment of the $35,284 sought by the wife with regard to the monies she paid for the children.  I note the wife has received significant funds, although the total amount is argued, over the last 12 months.  Consequently, it could be argued or it could be seen that that $35,284 has already been in many ways provided by the parties in different ways.  Accordingly, I intend to make the following orders.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Benjamin delivered on 23 March 2020.

Associate: 

Date:  18 June 2020