Santini & Santini - [2023] FedCFamC2F 529

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Santini & Santini [2023] FedCFamC2F 529

File number(s): PAC 3297 of 2019

Judgment of: JUDGE NEWBRUN

Date of judgment: 9 May 2023

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Just and equitable property Orders made.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75(2), 79(2), 79(4), 81, 106A

Cases cited:
Bevan & Bevan (2013) FLC 93-545

Lotta & Lotta [2017] FamCA 50

AJO & GRO (2005) FLC 93-218

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 130

Date of hearing: 2–3 March 2023, 6 March 2023

Place: Parramatta

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr MacPherson

Solicitor for the Applicant: Sydney Family Law Specialists Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Abdelraheem

Solicitor for the Respondent: JB Solicitors
ORDERS

PAC 3297 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS SANTINI
Applicant

AND:
MR SANTINI
Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE NEWBRUN

DATE OF ORDER:

9 MAY 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Within twelve weeks of the date of these Orders, the husband shall pay to the wife the sum of $1,746,161.
2.Failing compliance with the above Order, the husband and wife shall do all things and acts and sign all documents as is necessary to list the property known as and situate at B Street, Suburb C being that parcel contained in Certificate of Title Folio Identifier … (“the B Street, Suburb C property”) for sale by private treaty at the best possible price and at the earliest possible time and for the purpose of implementing the sale:
(a)The husband and wife shall instruct Ms D of E Conveyancing, Suburb F, or other such solicitor or conveyancer as they agree upon, to have the conduct of the sale of the B Street, Suburb C property on behalf of the husband and wife;
(b)The husband and wife shall appoint Mr G of H Real Estate to sell the B Street, Suburb C property, or such other real estate agent as the parties agree to appoint;
(c)Neither the husband nor wife may confer on any other agent, without the consent of the other party, any right to any sole or exclusive agency in respect of the B Street, Suburb C property or to any commission;
(d)The sale price at which the B Street, Suburb C property shall be listed shall be as mutually agreed between the husband and wife, and in the absence of agreement at two calendar months prior to the due date of the sale, the price as nominated as the fair market value by J Pty Ltd (“the valuer”) the costs of and incidental to such appointment of the valuer shall be borne equally by the husband and wife as and when they fall due; and
(e)The valuer will, if requested by the husband or wife, at a date three calendar months after the date upon which the B Street, Suburb C property is first listed for sale pursuant to the provisions of these Orders and thereafter at…

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 Santini & Santini

Details

AGLC: Santini & Santini [2023] FedCFamC2F 529
Case: [2023] FedCFamC2F 529
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Santini & Santini was a final property settlement hearing in the Family Court of Australia. The applicant wife and respondent husband sought various orders in relation to their property and financial settlement. The Court considered the financial disclosure, contributions, and other relevant factors in determining the property settlement. The Court found that the husband had failed to make adequate financial disclosure, but did not find that he was hiding assets. The Court determined the net assets of the parties to be $4,822,297 and assessed the parties' contributions to those assets to be 55% in favour of the husband and 45% to the wife. The Court made an adjustment in favour of the husband under section 75(2) of the Family Law Act and ordered the husband to pay the wife $1,746,161 from the sale proceeds of their jointly-owned property, or failing which, the property should be sold. The wife was to retain her inheritance assets and other personal property. The Court made Orders to implement the property settlement as determined.

Orders