STARKEY & STARKEY

Case

[2010] FamCA 477

9 June 2010


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
STARKEY & STARKEY [2010] FamCA 477 [2010] FamCA 477 9 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application before Murphy J in the Family Court of Australia. The parties, Mr and Mrs Starkey, sought to vary existing property settlement orders made on 24 March 2009. The wife sought to alter the distribution of certain assets, specifically relating to a business, and also sought a declaration regarding the parties' separation date.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the existing property settlement orders should be varied pursuant to section 79A(1A) of the *Family Law Act 1975*, and whether the wife could establish the grounds for such a variation. Additionally, the court was required to determine an oral application by the wife for a declaration of separation.

Murphy J dismissed the wife's application for variation under section 79A(1A). His Honour reasoned that the wife had not satisfied the necessary grounds for variation. The court found that it was not impracticable to carry out the original orders, as the wife had received the business as contemplated. The subsequent decrease in the business's value or the loss of contracts, which formed the basis of the wife's application, were not considered sufficient grounds for variation under section 79A. His Honour held that these events were either foreseeable or should have been contemplated by the wife at the time the original orders were made, and that property settlement orders are intended to bring finality to the financial relationship between parties at a specific point in time. The wife's oral application for a declaration of separation was also dismissed.

By consent, the court ordered a variation of the property settlement orders, reallocating specific motor vehicles and shares between the parties. The husband was to retain all other property in his possession, and the wife was to retain all other property in her possession. The court also directed the distribution of funds from a joint bank account in accordance with the original orders. The wife was ordered to pay the husband's costs, including reserved costs.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

  • Civil Procedure

Legal Concepts

  • Appeal

  • Costs

  • Remedies

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

2