FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SCOZZARI & SCOZZARI AND ORS | [2014] FamCA 812 |
| FAMILY LAW – JURISDICTION – Accrued – Where the Court has jurisdiction to continue to hear these proceedings – Where adequate notice has been given to third parties – Where the court may appropriately make a determination under accrued jurisdiction or part VIIIAA of the Act effecting the rights and interests of third parties. FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – Rights of third parties – Where the Court does not have power to prevent a third party from continuing legal proceedings already commenced in a different court. FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Discretion – Where each party will bear his or her own costs. |
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW)
Christie & Christie [2007] FamCA 125
Vella & Buchanan and Ors [2011] FamCA 483
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd 1998 HCA 55 (1990) 171 CLR 538
Re Wakim (1999) 198 CLR 511
| APPLICANT: | Ms R Scozzari |
| RESPONDENT: SECOND RESPONDENT: THIRD RESPONDENT: | Mr Scozzari Ms M Scozzari Scozzari Pty Limited |
| FILE NUMBER: | CAC | 210 | of | 2013 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 24 September 2014 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Canberra |
| PLACE HEARD: | Canberra |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Faulks DCJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 18 September 2014 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr Wong |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Farrar Gesini Dunn |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Ms Lyndon, Watts McCray |
COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD
RESPONDENTS: Mr Levet
SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD
RESPONDENTS: United Legal
Orders
The applicant wife’s application filed 16 June 2014 that the husband’s mother, Ms M Scozzari, and the company, Scozzari Pty Limited, be restrained from taking any further proceedings in the District Court and related matters is dismissed.
The dispute between the applicant and the respondent about the division of property will proceed in the Family Court of Australia and as a consequence orders may be made pursuant to part VIIIAA of the Family Law Act 1975 and in particular under s 90AE in relation to the debt alleged to be due from the husband and the wife to Ms M Scozzari and or Scozzari Pty Limited. The determination of that issue may invoke the accrued jurisdiction of the Family Court of Australia.
Ms M Scozzari’s application for costs through her counsel Mr Levet is dismissed.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Scozzari & Scozzari and Ors has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA |
FILE NUMBER: CAC 210 of 2013
| Ms R Scozzari |
Applicant
And
| Mr Scozzari |
Respondent
And
Ms M Scozzari
Second Respondent)
And
Scozzari Pty Limited
Third Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
I indicated to the parties in Court what my decision was in relation to this matter and further indicated that if requested I would give written reasons for my decisions. The request to provide those reasons was made.
The proceedings…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Scozzari and Scozzari and Ors and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] FamCA 812
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proceedings initiated by Ms M Scozzari and Scozzari Pty Limited in the District Court should be permanently stayed or restrained, and consequently, whether the Family Court of Australia had jurisdiction to determine the debt owed to them as part of the property settlement between the husband and wife.
Faulks DCJ reasoned that the Family Court of Australia possessed the necessary jurisdiction under Part VIIIAA of the *Family Law Act 1975*, specifically section 90AE, to make orders in relation to the alleged debt. The court determined that the resolution of this debt was intrinsically linked to the property settlement between the husband and wife. Therefore, the Family Court could exercise its accrued jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. Consequently, the wife's application to restrain further proceedings in the District Court was dismissed, and Ms M Scozzari's application for costs was also dismissed. The property division dispute, including the determination of the debt, would proceed in the Family Court.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The applicant wife’s application filed 16 June 2014 that the husband’s mother, Ms M Scozzari, and the company, Scozzari Pty Limited, be restrained from taking any further proceedings in the District Court and related matters is dismissed.
2.
The dispute between the applicant and the respondent about the division of property will proceed in the Family Court of Australia and as a consequence orders may be made pursuant to part VIIIAA of the Family Law Act 1975 and in particular under s 90AE in relation to the debt alleged to be due from the husband and the wife to Ms M Scozzari and or Scozzari Pty Limited. The determination of that issue may invoke the accrued jurisdiction of the Family Court of Australia.
3.
Ms M Scozzari’s application for costs through her counsel Mr Levet is dismissed.
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.