Sigley and De Santis and Ors (No 2) - [2019] FamCA 596

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SIGLEY & DE SANTIS AND ORS (NO. 2)

[2019] FamCA 596

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – procedural steps to ensure three proceedings advance smoothly to trial – 12 day trial ordered.

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 1.04, 1.06, 1.07, 6.02, 6.03
Trustee Act (Vic) s 63
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) sch 2, s 60-10(2)(a)

Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd v Austarama Television Pty Ltd [1972] 2 NSWLR 467
B Pty Ltd v K (2008) 39 Fam LR 488
Banque Commerciale SA v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279
Bourke v Bourke (2010) 43 Fam LR 139
Buckeridge & Buckeridge (No 2) (1981) 7 Fam LR 958
Chen & Chen (No 2) [2017] FamCA 285
Chye & Thian [2019] FamCA 336
Collins & Collins (1987) 11 Fam LR 382
Commerce Consolidated Pty Ltd v Johnstone [1976] VR 724
Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658
Friar & Friar (2014) 52 Fam LR 275
Gilbert v Stanton (1905) 2 CLR 447
Gould & Birkbeck & Bacon v Mount Oxide Mines Ltd (in liq) (1916) 22 CLR 490
Gould & Gould; Swire Investments Ltd (1993) 17 Fam LR 156
Hooker Town Developments Pty Ltd v Director of War Services Homes (1973) 47 ALJR 320
Howtrac Rentals Pty Ltd v Thiess Contractors (NZ) Ltd [2000] VSC 415
Miller v Cameron (1936) 54 CLR 572
Pakullus v Cameron (1982) 180 CLR 447
Slee v Warke (1949) 86 CLR 271
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Sigley & De Santis [2019] FamCA 271
Victorian Economic Development Corporation v Simons [1994] VicSC 475

I. C. F Spry, The Principles of Equitable Remedies, Specific Performance, Injunctions, Rectification and Equitable Damages (Law Book Company Ltd, 4^th ed, 1990)
The Hon. J. Dyson Heydon AC QC, Mark J Leeming and Peter G Turner, Meagher, Gummow and Lehane's Equity Doctrines and Remedies (LexisNexis Butterworths, 5^th ed, 2014)

APPLICANT:

Mr Sigley

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Mr De Santis

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Q Pty Ltd as trustee for Q Discretionary Trust

THIRD RESPONDENT:

R Pty Ltd as trustee for De Santis Family Trust

FOURTH RESPONDENT:

Mr S De Santis

FIFTH AND SIXTH RESPONDENTS:

Mr T and Mr U as liquidators of E Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

SEVENTH RESPONDENT:

De Santis Family Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for E Superannuation Fund

EIGHTH RESPONDENT:

V Pty Ltd (formerly P Partners Pty Ltd)

NINTH RESPONDENT:

B Accountants Pty Ltd

TENTH RESPONDENT:

X Pty Ltd as trustee for Trust for the Children of Mr & Ms De Santis

PROPOSED ELEVENTH RESPONDENT:

E6 Pty Ltd

TWELFTH RESPONDENT:

Ms De Santis (also known as BB De Santis)

THIRTEENTH RESPONDENT:

E Pty Ltd

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

9296

2015

DATE DELIVERED:

27 August 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Wilson J

HEARING DATE:

20 August 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr J W St John QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Peter Szabo Family Law

COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT:

No appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT:

None

COUNSEL FOR THE…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sigley and De Santis and Ors (No 2) 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] FamCA 596
Decision Date: 27 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Sigley and De Santis and Ors (No 2)*, heard by Wilson J, the dispute concerned the finalisation of orders following earlier proceedings. The parties involved were Sigley and De Santis, along with other respondents.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of the precise terms of the minutes of order to be made, reflecting the court's earlier reasons for judgment. This involved ensuring the minutes accurately captured the court's findings and directions.

Wilson J directed that the parties were to bring in minutes giving effect to the court's reasons by 4pm on 2 September 2019. The form of the final order was noted as being subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

By 4pm on 2 September 2019 I direct that the parties bring in minutes that give effect to these reasons.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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.