Strahan & Strahan (Interim Financial Orders) - [2010] FamCA 423

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STRAHAN & STRAHAN (INTERIM FINANCIAL ORDERS)

[2010] FamCA 423

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – interim orders – where the wife seeks an interim property settlement of $24 million dollars – where there is considerable dispute as to the size of the matrimonial asset pool – consideration of the assets and payments the wife has already received – not satisfied that it is just and equitable to make an order at the interim stage where the evidence has not been tested – wife’s application dismissed

FAMILY LAW – CHILD SUPPORT – where the wife has filed an application seeking departure from Administrative Assessment – where there is significant dispute as to wife’s claimed costs for the child – where the husband has voluntarily agreed to provide a significant sum for the care of the child – not appropriate to make order on an interim basis where evidence has not been tested – wife’s application dismissed

FAMILY LAW – SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – interim orders – where the wife has made an application seeking spousal maintenance for the sum of $278,000 per month to be backdated – where the parties maintained a very high standard of living during the marriage – where the sum sought by the wife has not been established by evidence – where the husband has proposed to pay a lump sum spouse maintenance based on wife’s claimed expenditure – consideration of the funds and assets available to the wife since separation

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – discovery of documents – application by wife seeking discovery of old documents – not satisfied that the documents sought are relevant to issues before the Court – application dismissed

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 72, 74, 75, 77, 78 & 79
Family Law Rules 2004 rr 1.04, 13.01, 13.07, 13.20 & 13.22

Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 ss 116(1)(b) 117 & 141

Strahan & Strahan [2009] FamCAFC 166
Wenz v Archer (2008) 40 FamLR 212
Wilson & Wilson (1989) FLC 92-033
Atwill & Atwill (1981) FLC 91-107
Bevan & Bevan (1995) FLC 92-600
Stein & Stein (2000) FamCA 102
Mulley v Manifold (1959) 103 CLR 341

APPLICANT:

Ms Strahan

RESPONDENT:

Mr Strahan

FILE NUMBER:

ADF

228

2005

DATE DELIVERED:

31 May 2010

PLACE DELIVERED:

Adelaide

PLACE HEARD:

Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF:

Dawe J

HEARING DATE:

31 March 2010 & 1 April 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Whitington, QC assisted by Ms Pyke, QC
and Mr Holland

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Pederick Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Bartfeld, QC assisted by Mr Berman of Counsel

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Robinson & Mason

Orders

Applications of the wife for interim property settlement and interim order for departure from Child Support Assessment are dismissed.
Application of the wife for further discovery of documents for period 1 July 1996 to January 2005 is dismissed.
By way of spousal maintenance pending the disposal of proceedings for spouse maintenance within twenty-one [21] days from today the husband do…

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 Strahan & Strahan (Interim Financial Orders)

Details

AGLC: Strahan & Strahan (Interim Financial Orders) [2010] FamCA 423
Case: [2010] FamCA 423
Decision Date: 31 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Strahan & Strahan*, heard by Dawe J in the Family Court of Australia, the wife sought various interim orders concerning property settlement, child support, and spousal maintenance, as well as discovery of certain documents. The husband contested these applications, particularly regarding the quantum of the asset pool and the wife's claimed expenses.

The court was required to determine whether it was just and equitable to make interim orders for property settlement and spousal maintenance, given the significant disputes regarding the size of the matrimonial asset pool and the wife's claimed costs for the child. Additionally, the court had to consider the wife's application for a departure from a child support assessment and her request for discovery of historical documents.

Dawe J dismissed the wife's applications for interim property settlement and departure from the child support assessment, finding that the evidence had not been tested and it was not appropriate to make orders on an interim basis. Similarly, the application for discovery of old documents was dismissed as the relevance of the documents to the issues before the court was not established. However, in relation to spousal maintenance, acknowledging the parties' high standard of living during the marriage and considering the funds available to the wife since separation, the court ordered the husband to pay a lump sum of $325,000 within twenty-one days.

Orders

Orders of the court

Applications of the wife for interim property settlement and interim order for departure from Child Support Assessment are dismissed.

Application of the wife for further discovery of documents for period 1 July 1996 to January 2005 is dismissed.

By way of spousal maintenance pending the disposal of proceedings for spouse maintenance within twenty-one [21] days from today the husband do pay to the wife the lump sum of THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS [$325,000.00].

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.