Railton and Railton - [2012] FMCAfam 535

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RAILTON & RAILTON

[2012] FMCAfam 535

FAMILY LAW – Property – interim application for property distribution pending final hearing – matters to be considered – whether appropriate to make such an order.

Family Law Act 1975, ss.79(2), 79(4), 80(1)

Lee Steere v Lee Steere (1998) FLC 91-626
Ferraro v Ferraro (1993) FLC 92-335
Clauson v Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595
Hickey v Hickey & Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervenor) 2003 FLC 93-143
Wardman & Hudson (1978) FLC 90-466
Biltoft & Biltoft (1995) FLC 92-614
Russell v Russell (1999) FamCA 187
Strahan v Strahan (2010) 42 Fam LR 203
Harris & Harris (1993) FLC 92-378

Wenz v Archer (2009) 40 Fam LR 212
Benson & Benson [2012] FMCAfam 335

Applicant:

MS RAILTON

Respondent:

MR RAILTON

File Number:

ADC 784 of 2012

Judgment of:

Brown FM

Hearing date:

29 May 2012

Date of Last Submission:

29 May 2012

Delivered at:

Adelaide

Delivered on:

7 June 2012

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms Lewis

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Tindall Gask Bentley

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Heinrich

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Von Doussas

ORDERS

There be an interim distribution of property to each of the parties in the sum of $25,000.00 from the funds standing in the husband’s name at the (name omitted).
The proceedings be listed for further directions and if not settled to allocate a date for final hearing at 9.30 am on 9 August 2012.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT ADELAIDE

ADC 784 of 2012

MS RAILTON

Applicant

And

MR RAILTON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

These reasons for judgment relate to an application for interim or partial settlement of property brought by Ms Railton “the wife”. The amount she seeks by way of partial property settlement is $50,000.00. Mr Railton “the husband” opposes the application and seeks its dismissal.
The wife was born on (omitted) 1950. She is not in formal paid employment at present. The husband was born on (omitted) 1947. He has recently retired from employment as a (omitted).
The parties married on (omitted) 1976 and separated in February 2010. They have two adult and financially independent children. They are not as yet divorced.
The wife commenced property proceedings on 1 March 2012. She seeks an as yet unspecified division of the parties’ pool of matrimonial assets. Initially, she also sought an urgent award of spousal maintenance.
The husband retired from the workforce on 8 March 2012 and ceased formal employment on 30 March 2012. In these circumstances, the wife abandoned her application for urgent spousal maintenance and in lieu thereof brought her claim for an interim property settlement.
In monetary terms, the parties’ major asset is the former matrimonial home located at Property S. It is registered in their joint names. I have not been provided with a formal valuation of…

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 Railton and Railton

Details

AGLC: Railton and Railton [2012] FMCAfam 535
Case: [2012] FMCAfam 535
Decision Date: 7 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of Railton and Railton was heard by Justice Mortimer. The dispute involved a property settlement between the parties, Mr Railton and Ms Railton, following their divorce. The central issue was the division of their matrimonial assets, with an immediate need for an interim distribution of funds to both parties.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate amount for an interim distribution of the assets, considering the respective financial positions and needs of each party. Additionally, the court needed to decide on the scheduling of further proceedings to address the final property settlement.

Justice Mortimer ordered an interim distribution of $25,000.00 to each party from the husband's funds held at a specified account. The court further directed that the proceedings be listed for further directions, with a view to allocating a date for a final hearing, if not settled beforehand, on 9 August 2012 at 9.30 am.

Orders

Orders of the court

There be an interim distribution of property to each of the parties in the sum of $25,000.00 from the funds standing in the husband’s name at the (name omitted).

The proceedings be listed for further directions and if not settled to allocate a date for final hearing at 9.30 am on 9 August 2012.

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.