Shafton and Shafton

In the Federal Magistrates Court, Ms Shafton sought a declaration that she was owed $80,346.06 by Mr Shafton under their consent orders made in the Family Court. Mr Shafton argued that he did not owe Ms Shafton any money. The dispute centred on the interpretation of certain provisions of the consent orders, particularly those concerning lump sum payments, monthly payments, and the interim funding facility. The wife argued that the husband owed her money based on a literal interpretation of the orders, while the husband argued that the orders should be read as a whole and that he was up to date with his obligations.

The court considered the principles of interpreting consent orders, noting that the orders must be read and interpreted independently of the parties' subjective intentions. The court found that Order 6, which dealt with payments to the wife, was ambiguous and required interpretation in light of the whole agreement and the uncontroversial background facts. The court concluded that the husband's overarching liability was to pay $60,000.00 per annum, and that any payments made under Order 6.4 should be treated as part payment of the lump sums. The court also found that the husband had not established the interim funding facility as required by the orders, and that the wife's claim based on this argument could not succeed.

The wife's application for a declaration that she was owed $80,346.06 by the husband was dismissed. The court found that the husband was up to date with his obligations pursuant to the orders, and did not owe the wife any money. The court's reasons for judgment were delivered on 21 January 2011.