SISCO & BOOTHE

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SISCO & BOOTHE [2019] FCCA 2976

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – the Wife’s application for property orders – the Husband has not filed any material and has not participated in proceedings save for one appearance at an interim hearing – the matter proceeded on an undefended basis.

HELD – orders made for a superannuation split in relation to the Husband’s superannuation with a base amount of $50,000, such that the Wife receive 65% of the parties’ asset pool for division and the Husband receive 35% of same.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.75(2), 79(2), 79(4).

Cases cited:

Stanford & Stanford [2012] FCA 52

Hickey and Hickey and Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Australia [2003] FamCA 395

Bevan and Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116

Applicant: MS SISCO

Respondent: MR BOOTHE

File Number: MLC 3385 of 2019

Judgment of: Judge Bender

Hearing date: 9 October 2019

Date of Last Submission: 9 October 2019

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 9 October 2019

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Self-represented

Solicitors for the Applicant: Not applicable

Counsel for the Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors for the Respondent: Not applicable

ORDERS

1. The matter be adjourned to 11 February 2019 at 9:30am for mention.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

No. MLC 3385 of 2019

MS SISCO

Applicant

And

MR BOOTHE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from Transcript)

1. This matter relates to a property application that has been brought by the Wife. She seeks orders be made in relation to the only significant asset of the parties for division, being the Husband’s superannuation. 

2. The Wife’s application first came before the Court on 18 June 2019. On that date it was apparent that the Wife’s Initiating Application and supporting documentation had not been properly served on the Husband, as they had only been posted to him. Orders were therefore made that required personal service of the application on the Husband and the matter was adjourned to 9 August 2019. 

3. On 26 June 2019 administrative orders were made relisting the matter from 9 August 2019 to 21 August 2019.

4. In accordance with the orders of 18 June 2019, personal service was effected upon the Husband. The matter returned to Court on 21 August 2019. On that date the Husband attended Court. Orders were made requiring the Husband to file responding material by 4:00pm on 20 September 2019 and the matter was otherwise adjourned to 9 October 2019 for hearing. A further order was made that in the event the Husband did not file responding material by 20 September 2019 the Wife would have leave to seek orders be made on the adjourned date on an undefended basis.

5. Given the orders sought by the Wife in this matter, on 21 August 2019 the Wife was also ordered to cause a copy of the her Initiating Application to…