Rickwood & Rickwood

[2009] FamCA 264

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RICKWOOD & RICKWOOD [2009] FamCA 264

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Waste – Add Backs

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

C & C [1998] FamCA 143
In the Marriage of Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595
In The Marriage of Kowaliw (1981) FLC 90-092
Omacini & Omacini (2005) FLC 93-218

APPLICANT: Mr Rickwood

RESPONDENT: Ms Rickwood

FILE NUMBER: BRF 3141 of 2006

DATE DELIVERED: 8 April 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Newcastle

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Justice Murphy

HEARING DATE: 20 March 2009

REPRESENTATION

APPLICANT: In person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr M. Pieterse

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Briese Lawyers

Orders

As and by way of settlement of property pursuant to Section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth):

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. Each party retain to the exclusion of any right, title, claim or interest of the other, the property currently in their respective possession.

2. From the amount held in trust by the solicitors for the wife, there be paid:

   (a)The liabilities totalling $78,190.50 enumerated at paragraph 38 of the Reason for Judgment delivered herewith; and

   (b)       Of the balance thereafter: 70% to the wife;

   (c)Of the balance thereafter:

   (i)To the Family Court of Australia: the hearing fee not earlier paid by the applicant husband in the sum of $534.00; and thereafter

   (ii)The balance to the husband.

3. Each of the parties otherwise be solely responsible for, and indemnify the other in respect of any and all liabilities in their respective names or for which they are each responsible.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRF 3141 of 2006

MR RICKWOOD  

Applicant Husband

And

MS RICKWOOD  

Respondent Wife

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. From the outset of these Section 79 proceedings, the central issue has been the ‘adding back’ of money; each party alleges that the other is culpable for the diminution in value of various assets post separation.

2. The wife alleges approximately half a million dollars was lost on a number of investment properties, allegedly attributable to the husband’s “deliberate and negligent conduct” in dealing with the properties post separation.

3. For his part, the husband alleges the wife negligently administered the affairs of their jointly held interest in a restaurant business, M Restaurant.  M Restaurant is owned by “[P] Pty Ltd”, a registered company owned by the Applicant husband.

4. At the conclusion of the trial, counsel for the wife, with respect, properly, conceded that, consistent with principle, most of the various amounts asserted as “add backs” by the wife could not be sustained.

5. The husband (who represented himself) maintained in his closing submissions that the wife’s negligent, perhaps even wanton, conduct has had the unfortunate result that M Restaurant now appears in the pool at a considerable loss.

6. The significance of these issues, as alleged, are more apparent when considered with reference to the now marital pool, which, leaving aside…