Sinclair & Sinclair

Case [2012] FamCA 388

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SINCLAIR & SINCLAIR [2012] FamCA 388
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – parties married in 1959 and disputed the date of separation as being either 1970 or 1985/1986 – very significant contributions by the wife as a result of inheritance – assessments of contribution and s 75(2) factors and the approach to be taken about not only the assessment but the weighting of such matters.
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Aleksovski and Aleksovski (1996) FLC 92-705
Bonnici and Bonnici (1992) FLC 92-272
Bremner and Bremner (1995) FLC 92-560
Dickson and Dickson (1999) FLC 92-843
Elgabri & Elgabri [2009] FamCA 227
Farmer and Bramley (2000) FLC 93-060
Froth & Froth [2007] FamCA 1608
Hickey & Hickey & Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (2003) FLC 93-143
Kennon and Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757
Mallet and Mallet (1984) FLC 91-507
Mistle & Mistle [2010] FamCA 29
Pierce and Pierce [1998] FamCA 74; 24 Fam LR 377; (1999) FLC 92-844
Schirmer and Sharpe (2005) FLC 93-213
Vokic & Vlass [2012] FamCA 56
Waters & Jurek (1995) FLC 92-635
APPLICANT: Mr Sinclair
RESPONDENT: Ms Sinclair
FILE NUMBER: MLC 3576 of 2010
DATE DELIVERED: 25 MAY 2012
PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne
PLACE HEARD: Melbourne
JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J
HEARING DATE: 17 May 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr O’Shannessy
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Barbayannis Lawyers
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Puckey
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Bowlen Dunstan & Associates Pty

Orders

  1. That by 4.00pm on 22 June 2012, the wife sign all such documents as may be required (as presented by the husband) to transfer to the husband, at his expense, all of her interest in the property at S Road, E suburb being the land described in Certificate of Title Volume … Folio ….

  2. That by the same date, the wife pay to the husband $118,000.

  3. That each party be solely entitled to the exclusion of the other to all other property in the name and possession of such party as at this date.

  4. That the application of the husband filed 9 February 2012 and the response thereto of the wife filed 27 January 2012 are otherwise dismissed save as to issues of costs.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Sinclair & Sinclair 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 HOBART

FILE NUMBER: MLC 3576  of 2010

Mr Sinclair

Applicant

And

Ms Sinclair

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This dispute is about what is a just and equitable division of the property of the husband and the wife.

  2. Mr Sinclair (“the husband”) and Mrs Sinclair (“the wife”) married in 1959 and their union produced three children, the first of whom died just after birth.  The other children are now adults.  There is a very big dispute about when they separated.  On one view it was 1970 and on the other, 1985/1986.

  3. Between…

Continue reading Sinclair & Sinclair

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sinclair & Sinclair [2012] FamCA 388
Case
[2012] FamCA 388
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Sinclair & Sinclair*, heard before Cronin J, the dispute concerned the division of property between a husband and wife. The court was required to make orders regarding the transfer of interests in a property and a monetary payment between the parties, as well as determining the entitlement to other property.

The central legal issues before the court were how to divide the matrimonial property, specifically the family home and a sum of money, and to finalise the parties' respective entitlements to all other assets. The court also had to consider the disposition of applications made by both the husband and wife concerning these matters.

Cronin J ordered that the wife transfer her interest in the property at S Road, E suburb to the husband at his expense by 4.00pm on 22 June 2012. Additionally, the wife was ordered to pay the husband $118,000 by the same date. The court further declared that each party was solely entitled to all other property in their respective names and possession. The husband's application filed on 9 February 2012 and the wife's response filed on 27 January 2012 were otherwise dismissed, except in relation to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That by 4.00pm on 22 June 2012, the wife sign all such documents as may be required (as presented by the husband) to transfer to the husband, at his expense, all of her interest in the property at S Road, E suburb being the land described in Certificate of Title Volume … Folio ….

2.

That by the same date, the wife pay to the husband $118,000.

3.

That each party be solely entitled to the exclusion of the other to all other property in the name and possession of such party as at this date.

4.

That the application of the husband filed 9 February 2012 and the response thereto of the wife filed 27 January 2012 are otherwise dismissed save as to issues of costs.

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.