SORA and SORA & Ors - [2010] FamCA 465

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SORA & SORA AND ORS

[2010] FamCA 465

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Joinder of third parties - Amendment to alter orders sought

Family Law Act 1975 I

Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v The Australian National University (2009) HCA 27
Lanceley (1994) FLC 92-491

APPLICANT:

Ms Sora

RESPONDENT:

Mr Sora

SECOND RESPONDENTS:

T Soratis

S Soratis
C Soratis

THIRD RESPONDENTS:

M Pty Ltd

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

4287

2007

DATE DELIVERED:

10 JUNE 2010

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CRONIN

HEARING DATE:

4 JUNE 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

MR BARTFELD QC WITH MS VOHRA

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

LANDER & ROGERS

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

MR SWEENEY

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

GSM LAWYERS

COUNSEL FOR THE 2^ND AND 3^RD RESPONDENTS:

MR ST JOHN SC WITH MR STRUM

SOLICITOR FOR THE 2^ND AND 3^RD RESPONDENTS:

DERMENZIES LAWYERS

Orders

That the Application in a Case filed by the husband on 16 April, 2010 is dismissed save as to issue of costs.
That the Response filed by the wife on 10 May, 2010 is dismissed save as to issue of costs.
That any application by any party for costs shall be filed and served on all other parties by written submission by no later than 4:00 pm. on 18 June, 2010 and any reply thereto be filed and served on all other parties by no later than 4:00 pm. on 25 June, 2010 and that any reply thereto be filed and served on all other parties by no later than 4:00 pm. on 2 July, 2010.
That any submission in relation to costs be determined by the Hon. Justice Cronin in chambers.
That the wife file and serve an amended application in final orders to reflect the request for an amendment made at the hearing on 4 June, 2010, such amended application be filed and served by 4:00 pm. on 18 June, 2010.
That the application of the wife and the response thereto of the husband together with the response of the second respondents filed 26 May, 2010 and the reply of the husband filed 31 May, 2010 otherwise await a final hearing before a judge on a date to be fixed by the registrar.

IT IS CERTIFIED

That pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 this matter reasonably required the attendance of counsel including senior counsel.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 4287 of 2007

MS SORA

Applicant

And

MR SORA

Respondent

And

T SORATIS
S SORATIS
C SORATIS

Second Respondents

M PTY LTD

Third Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These are interlocutory proceedings between Mr Sora (“the husband”), Ms Sora (“the wife”), T, S and C Soratis (“the second respondents”) and M Pty. Ltd. (“the third respondent”).
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.

Continue reading SORA and SORA & Ors

Details

AGLC: SORA and SORA & Ors [2010] FamCA 465
Case: [2010] FamCA 465
Decision Date: 10 JUNE 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *SORA and SORA & Ors*, Justice Cronin of the Family Court of Australia considered applications made by the husband and the wife. The husband filed an application on 16 April 2010, and the wife filed a response on 10 May 2010.

The court was required to determine the disposition of these applications and to address the issue of costs. Additionally, the wife sought to amend her application in final orders, which required the court's consideration.

Justice Cronin dismissed the husband's application and the wife's response, reserving the issue of costs. The court ordered that any applications for costs be filed and served by specific dates, with replies to follow, and that these submissions would be determined in chambers. The wife was permitted to file and serve an amended application reflecting a request made at the hearing. The wife's application, the husband's response, the second respondents' response, and the husband's reply were to await a final hearing before a judge on a date to be fixed by the registrar. The court certified that the matter reasonably required the attendance of counsel, including senior counsel.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Application in a Case filed by the husband on 16 April, 2010 is dismissed save as to issue of costs.

That the Response filed by the wife on 10 May, 2010 is dismissed save as to issue of costs.

That any application by any party for costs shall be filed and served on all other parties by written submission by no later than 4:00 pm. on 18 June, 2010 and any reply thereto be filed and served on all other parties by no later than 4:00 pm. on 25 June, 2010 and that any reply thereto be filed and served on all other parties by no later than 4:00 pm. on 2 July, 2010.

That any submission in relation to costs be determined by the Hon. Justice Cronin in chambers.

That the wife file and serve an amended application in final orders to reflect the request for an amendment made at the hearing on 4 June, 2010, such amended application be filed and served by 4:00 pm. on 18 June, 2010.

That the application of the wife and the response thereto of the husband together with the response of the second respondents filed 26 May, 2010 and the reply of the husband filed 31 May, 2010 otherwise await a final hearing before a judge on a date to be fixed by the registrar.

IT IS CERTIFIED

That pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 this matter reasonably required the attendance of counsel including senior counsel.

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.