Rizvi & Rizvi

[2021] FamCA 180

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rizvi & Rizvi [2021] FamCA 180

File number(s):	SYC 4032 of 2017
Judgment of:	REES J
Date of judgment:	7 April 2021
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review of a registrar’s decision – Where the husband’s former solicitors filed an Application to intervene in the proceedings – Where the registrar dismissed the Application – Orders made setting aside the registrar’s decision.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79(10)
Number of paragraphs:	9
In Chambers:	7 April 2021
Place:	Sydney
Solicitor for the Applicants:	TT Lawyers
First Respondent:	Self-Represented
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	York Family Law Specialists

ORDERS

SYC 4032 of 2017

BETWEEN:

TT LAWYERS PTY LTD

Applicants

AND:

MR RIZVI

First Respondent

MS RIZVI

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	REES J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 APRIL 2021

THE COURT ORDERS:

1.That the order of a registrar made on 25 March 2021 dismissing the application of TT Lawyers Pty Ltd to intervene in these proceedings be set aside.

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 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Rees J:

1. TT Lawyers (“the applicants”), who formerly acted for the husband, have filed an application to review the refusal by a registrar to allow them to intervene in proceedings between Mr Rizvi (“the husband”) and Ms Rizvi (“the wife”).

2. The applicants rely on an affidavit of Ms RR sworn 23 February 2021.

3. The applicants and the husband entered into a Costs Agreement on 4 September 2017 for the applicants to provide legal services to the husband. A term of the Costs Agreement permitted the applicants to lodge a caveat against the interest of the husband in a property at Suburb MM in order to secure the fees payable to the applicant. A caveat was duly lodged. Thus the applicants became secured creditors, their security being by way of equitable charge.

4. The applicants claim to be owed $365,816.08 by the husband.

5. The husband is now bankrupt. His trustee in bankruptcy has sold the Suburb MM property and requires the applicants to remove their caveat in order to settle the sale.

6. On 15 October 2020, an order was made requiring the husband to instruct the applicants to remove their caveat. In the event that the applicants declined to remove the caveat, the wife was authorised to issue a lapsing notice.

7. Section 79(10) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) provides that a creditor of a party, who may not be able to recover his debt, is entitled to be a party to the proceedings.

8. The applicants, once their caveat over Suburb MM is removed, fall into that category.

9. The applicants are entitled to be joined as parties to the proceedings to seek the payment of the sum found to be owed to them from any monies to which the husband is judged to be entitled.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Rees.

Associate:

Dated:       7 April 2021