Romano and June (No 2) - [2011] FamCA 537

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ROMANO & JUNE (NO. 2) [2011] FamCA 537

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Dispute between the husband and wife as to the property that is to be included in the property division proceedings – Whether the property of the husband includes all of the assets of a company where the husband is a director.

FAMILY LAW – EVIDENCE – Interrogation – Whether leave should be granted for the wife to ask the husband to provide a sufficient answer to a specific question pertaining to the property – Court satisfied that questions of fact surrounding the property are relevant – Order that the husband answer the specific questions relating to the names and addresses of the directors and shareholders of the company.

Family Law Rules 2004 r 13.28, r 13.26, r 13.26(2), r 13.26(3), r 13.27, r 13.28(1), r 13.28(2)

Romano & June [2010] FamCA 1027
Acacia Sportswear Pty Ltd v Segenhoe Ltd, Federal Court 20 July 1994, Davies J
Potter’s Sulphide Ore Treatment Ltd v Sulphide Corporation Ltd (1911) 13 CLR 101
Cumming v Matheson (1970) 92 WN (NSW) 339
Clime Capital Limited v Credit Corp Group Limited (No 2) [2010] FCA 343
Abduramanoscki v Aidan Nominees Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 607
Fischer and Another v City Hotels Pty Ltd (1970) 92 WN (NSW) 322

APPLICANT: Ms Romano

RESPONDENT: Mr June

FILE NUMBER: BRC 3679 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 3 June 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Forrest J

HEARING DATE: 26 May 2011
REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr P. Hackett

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Hirst & Co Family Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr T North SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Bowen Buchbinder Vilensky Lawyers

Orders
1.The husband further answer Question 4(ii) of the Specific Questions delivered to him by the solicitors for the wife within twenty-one (21) days of the date hereof by:

(a)providing the name, or names, of the natural person or persons, if any apart from the husband himself, representing the owner, of the … yacht named “[SSS]”:
(i)with whom the husband made any arrangement or arrangements for the Husband’s use of the said vessel; and/or

(ii)who authorised the husband’s use of the said vessel.

2.Leave is granted to the wife to deliver further Specific Questions to the husband as follows with such further Specific Questions to be answered by the husband within 21 days of the date hereof:

(i)“What are the names and addresses of all of the directors of [X2] Limited?”;

(ii)“What are the names and addresses of all of the shareholders of [X2] Limited?”.

IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED THAT
3.Order 6 of the Orders made on 12 April 2011 requiring the wife to file and serve all affidavits of evidence in chief by 4.00 pm on 22 June 2011 be extended to 4.00 pm on 29 June 2011.

4.Order 7 of the Orders made on 12 April 2011 requiring the husband to file and serve all his affidavits of evidence in chief by 4.00…

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 Romano and June (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Romano and June (No 2) [2011] FamCA 537
Case: [2011] FamCA 537
Decision Date: 3 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Romano and June (No 2)*, Forrest J of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between a husband and wife concerning the division of their property. The central issue was whether all assets of a company, of which the husband was a director, should be included in the property pool. Additionally, the wife sought leave to ask the husband specific questions regarding the property.

The court was required to determine whether the husband was obligated to provide further particulars regarding arrangements for his use of a yacht, specifically identifying any other individuals who represented the owner or authorised his use. Furthermore, the court had to decide whether to grant the wife leave to ask the husband for the names and addresses of all directors and shareholders of a company named [X2] Limited.

Forrest J was satisfied that the questions posed by the wife were relevant to the factual circumstances surrounding the property. Consequently, the court ordered the husband to provide a more comprehensive answer to the question concerning the yacht. Leave was also granted for the wife to deliver further specific questions to the husband, requiring him to disclose the names and addresses of the directors and shareholders of [X2] Limited. The court also made consequential orders extending timeframes for the filing and service of affidavits and reserved costs to the trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The husband further answer Question 4(ii) of the Specific Questions delivered to him by the solicitors for the wife within twenty-one (21) days of the date hereof by:

(a) providing the name, or names, of the natural person or persons, if any apart from the husband himself, representing the owner, of the … yacht named “[SSS]”:

(i) with whom the husband made any arrangement or arrangements for the Husband’s use of the said vessel; and/or

(ii) who authorised the husband’s use of the said vessel.

2. Leave is granted to the wife to deliver further Specific Questions to the husband as follows with such further Specific Questions to be answered by the husband within 21 days of the date hereof:

(i) “What are the names and addresses of all of the directors of [X2] Limited?”;

(ii) “What are the names and addresses of all of the shareholders of [X2] Limited?”.

IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED THAT

3. Order 6 of the Orders made on 12 April 2011 requiring the wife to file and serve all affidavits of evidence in chief by 4.00 pm on 22 June 2011 be extended to 4.00 pm on 29 June 2011.

4. Order 7 of the Orders made on 12 April 2011 requiring the husband to file and serve all his affidavits of evidence in chief by 4.00 pm on 12 July 2011 be extended to 4.00 pm on 19 July 2011.

5. Order 8 of the Orders made on 12 April 2011 requiring the wife to file and serve any affidavit in reply by 4.00 pm on 29 July 2011 be extended to 4.00 pm on 5 August 2011.

6. All parties’ costs of and incidental to today are reserved to the trial.

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.