Ristic v Maroti - [2014] VSC 29

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

PRACTICE COURT

No S CI 2013 4246

IN THE MATTER OF an application to transfer proceeding to the Family Court pursuant to s 5 of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Vic)

BETWEEN:

STEVE RISTIC	Plaintiff
v
VALERIA MAROTI	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	RUSH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 January, 29 January 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 February 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Ristic v Maroti
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 29

---

JURISDICTION – Courts – Funds in Supreme Court – Application for release of funds – Family Court proceeding – Cross-vesting application - Interests of justice – Application refused – Relationships Act2008 s 45 – Family Law Act1975 (Cth) ss 75, 90 – Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act1987 s 5.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the Defendant	Mr J McIntyre (solicitor)	Goodman Group Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

On 9 January 2014, Valeria Maroti (“the defendant”) issued a summons seeking an order that this Supreme Court proceeding, pursuant to s 5 Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Vic) (“the Act”), be cross-vested to the Family Court.

The Supreme Court proceeding was commenced by originating motion on 16 August 2013. Mr Ristic (“the plaintiff”) made application to the Court on 20 August 2013 for 100% release of moneys held in Court, $136,142.92, referable to the proceeds of the sale of the property situated at 14 Wiranga Road, Bayswater in Victoria. The defendant maintains as a consequence of her contribution to a de facto relationship with the plaintiff she was entitled to part of the proceeds of the sale of the property.

In a supporting affidavit, the plaintiff states that after 26 years his marriage broke down in July 2006. At around this time, he moved into a property rented by the defendant. He lived, he says, in the defendant’s rented accommodation with the defendant for approximately five months. He alleges that during this period there was no commitment to a relationship by either party, expenses were shared, and the defendant dated other men. The plaintiff states that, since this time, he has lived apart from the defendant.

In his affidavit, the plaintiff deposes that he lived in the Wiranga Road property until September 2011. This property was sold on 9 September 2011 and the net proceeds of sale were $137,338.88. This sum was lodged in the trust account of solicitors, Anderson Partners, at the request of Apple Conveyancing, who acted for the plaintiff on the sale. The reason for the funds being lodged in the Anderson Partners trust account was that the defendant, prior to sale, claimed an interest in the proceeds from the sale and lodged a caveat over the property. The parties agreed that the caveat would be withdrawn to permit settlement to proceed, conditional upon the proceeds being placed in the Anderson Partners trust account.

Exhibited to the affidavit of Mr Ristic…

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 Ristic v Maroti

Details

AGLC: Ristic v Maroti [2014] VSC 29
Case: [2014] VSC 29
Decision Date: 12 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court, Ristic sought the release of funds that were subject to a Family Court proceeding. The application for the release of these funds was opposed by Maroti, who argued that the funds were subject to the Family Court's jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975 and the Relationships Act 2008. The court was required to determine whether the funds could be released despite the Family Court's existing jurisdiction over the matter.

The court examined the relevant legislation, including the Family Law Act 1975, the Relationships Act 2008, and the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987. The primary issue was whether the interests of justice warranted the release of the funds, considering the existing Family Court proceeding. The court also had to consider whether the application for the release of the funds was an appropriate exercise of the court's discretion under the relevant legislation.

The court concluded that the release of the funds would not be in the interests of justice, given the existing Family Court proceeding. The court found that the application for the release of the funds was not an appropriate exercise of the court's discretion under the legislation. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the Family Court's jurisdiction over family law matters and the need to protect the interests of the parties involved.

The application for the release of the funds was refused. The court ordered that the funds remain subject to the Family Court's jurisdiction until the existing proceeding was resolved. The court also noted that the parties were free to seek further orders or make applications in relation to the funds as appropriate, provided they did so within the Family Court's jurisdiction.

Orders