Suriz and Bidal

[2017] FamCA 1064

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SURIZ & BIDAL [2017] FamCA 1064

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF REGISTRAR’S ORDER – Where consideration of relevant facts – Where consideration of applicable principles – Where application for costs dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 117

Collins and Collins (1985) FLC 91-603
Greedy and Greedy (1982) FLC 91-250
Hawkins & Roe [2012] FamCAFC 77
Luadaka v Luadaka (1998) FLC 92-830
Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311

APPLICANT: Mr Suriz

RESPONDENT: Ms Bidal

FILE NUMBER: PAC 5647 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 20 December 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Foster J

HEARING DATE: By way of written submissions last received on 7 December 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Druitt

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Marsdens Law Group

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Fantin

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Pannu Lawyers

Orders

1. That the wife’s application for costs of and incidental to appearances before the Registrar be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Suriz & Bidal has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 5647  of 2016

Mr Suriz

Applicant

And

Ms Bidal

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The application for determination is the respondent husband’s Application in a Case filed 12 September 2017 for review of certain orders made by a Registrar on 14 July 2017 and 5 September 2017. This application is a hearing de novo.

2. The primary proceedings relate to the question of property adjustment as between the applicant wife and respondent husband. The applicant wife seeks orders in her Initiating Application filed 30 November 2016 that provide for:

   a)the sale of the matrimonial properties at Suburb B, Suburb C and Suburb D and that certain joint bank accounts operated by the parties be closed;

   b)the proceeds of sale of the properties and of the bank accounts be divided as to 75 per cent to the wife and 25 per cent to the husband;

   c)the various corporate entities in which the husband has interests be valued and that the husband pay to the wife 75 per cent of the value of the husband’s interest in the said entities.

3. The respondent husband filed a Response to the wife’s Initiating Application on 8 March 2017. In that Response he sought property orders that in summary provide:

   a)that he pay to the wife a sum equivalent to 55 per cent of the net matrimonial asset pool;

   b)that on payment to the wife she transfer to…