Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Proceedings for parenting orders and final adjustment of property interests – parenting applications resolved by final consent orders – application for the adjustment of property interests – de facto relationship – relationship of long duration – just and equitable adjustment of property interests – where parties were persons of modest means at commencement of relationship – where parties accumulate significant property during the course of relationship – where respondent husband contends monies advanced by paternal mother were investment in family business – where paternal mother joined as second respondent – where claim by paternal mother for declaratory relief discontinued in the course of trial – where parties ultimately in substantial agreement as to property pool – whether monies expended by one party should be added back –springboard argument as to establishment of family business and acquisition and development of properties – erosion principle – alleged non-disclosure of funds – company’s future earning potential – treatment of Div. 7A taxation and capital gains liabilities – contributions – parties’ future earning capacity – spousal maintenance – interim property orders made by consent to enable husband to refinance so as to clear mortgage over matrimonial home and free up capital to make cash payment to the applicant wife – consent orders resolve application for removal of caveat – injunction restraining the respondent husband of disposing of any assets lifted to enable sale of properties – removal of injunction conditioned on contemporaneous removal of caveats to enable completion of property sales – parties agreed it is just and equitable to adjust property interests – direct and in direct contributions – final orders made.
[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.
Continue reading Sinha and Sharma and Anor
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Sinha and Sharma and Anor [2019] FCCA 3244
Case
[2019] FCCA 3244
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Sinha and Sharma and Anor*, heard before Judge A. Kelly, the dispute concerned the proposed orders to be made following the court's reasons for judgment. The parties involved were Sinha and Sharma, along with another party referred to as "Anor".
The primary legal issue before the court was the formulation of a minute of proposed orders that would give effect to the court's prior judgment. This involved identifying areas of agreement and disagreement between the parties regarding the specific terms of those orders.
Judge A. Kelly directed the parties to file and serve a minute of proposed order by a specified date, outlining any agreed or disagreed terms. The proceeding was subsequently listed for mention to address these proposed orders, with liberty granted to the parties to apply on short notice. Crucially, the costs of and incidental to the proceeding were reserved by the court.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
By 4.00pm on Thursday, 28 November 2019, the parties file and serve a minute of proposed order giving effect to these reasons for judgment and indicating where they are agreed or disagreed on particular terms of that proposed order.
2.
The proceeding is listed for mention at 10.00am on Monday, 16 December 2019.
3.
The parties are at liberty to apply on short notice.
4.
The costs of and incidental to the proceeding are reserved.