Singleton and Singleton

[2008] FamCA 658

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SINGLETON & SINGLETON [2008] FamCA 658

FAMILY LAW – CHILD SUPPORT – Maintenance agreement

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: MS SINGLETON

RESPONDENT: MR SINGLETON

FILE NUMBER: MLC 2938 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 16 July 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 16 July 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Puckey

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Marshalls & Dent

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Fookes

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Berry Family Law

Orders

1. That BY CONSENT there be orders in accordance with the minutes of proposed orders marked Exhibit “A” sealed and attached hereto AND IT IS DIRECTED that such minutes remain upon the Court file.

2. That the solicitor for the applicant wife engross the minutes and deliver them by electronic transmission to my Associate within 7 days.

3. That my reasons for judgment this day be transcribed and be placed upon the court file.

4. That the conciliation conference fixed for 29 August 2008 be vacated.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Singleton & Singleton is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 2938 of 2008

MS SINGLETON

Applicant

And

MR SINGLETON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a matter that I have had the advantage of reading the file before coming down to court today.  It came to this list on the basis that the wife was seeking maintenance orders and also a Barro application, together with some discovery orders. 

2. The parties have had an enormous advantage today by having lawyers who have focused on the big picture rather than on the little picture, and ultimately what I have before me is a settlement which resolves all outstanding issues before me, noting that there is an adult child maintenance application which is to be withdrawn and which the wife says will be reissued at a point in time when the financial position of the parties is clearer.

3. I have had the advantage of looking at the financial positions of the parties.  I know what the pool of assets is, and I have already figured out what the non‑superannuation and superannuation assets are.  Having read what I did read, albeit it was limited, it is quite clear that the outcome of this case is well within the range of a sensible outcome and has a distinct ring of commercial reality about it.  In those circumstances I am content to say that the orders that I have been handed are just and equitable in the circumstances.

I certify that the preceding Three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin

Associate: …

Date:  23 July 2008