Sutton and Lasko and Anor (No.3)
Case
•
[2019] FCCA 2686
•16 September 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Sutton and Lasko and Anor (No.3) [2019] FCCA 2686
[2019] FCCA 2686
16 September 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Sutton and Lasko and Anor (No.3)*, Judge McNab of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was required to determine applications concerning the freezing and transfer of various funds and the imposition of restraints on dealings with company accounts. The dispute involved the Applicant Husband and the First Respondent, with the court considering the financial positions of numerous entities controlled by the Applicant.
The court was tasked with determining the appropriate orders for the disposition of funds held by solicitors and the management of bank accounts held by a multitude of companies. Specifically, the court had to decide whether to order the transfer of funds between legal representatives, whether to continue holding certain funds in trust, and whether to restrain the Applicant Husband and the Second Respondent from dealing with specific company bank accounts. The court also considered the application of section 114(3) and section 90AF(2)(a) of the *Family Law Act* in relation to these orders.
Judge McNab ordered the transfer of a significant sum from one firm of solicitors to another, to be held pending trial. Further, the court ordered the transfer of $15,000 to a controlled monies account and continued to hold another $15,000 in trust. Crucially, the Applicant Husband was restrained from dealing with a term deposit of approximately $44,000, save for rolling it over. The court also substituted existing account freezing orders with new ones, restraining the Applicant Husband from withdrawing funds from a lengthy list of company bank accounts without the First Respondent's consent, and similarly restraining the Second Respondent from dealing with specific company accounts, including one in liquidation. These orders were directed to be given effect by the relevant financial institutions pursuant to the *Family Law Act*. The Applicant Husband was ordered to pay the First Respondent's costs on an indemnity basis, with a process set for the determination of quantum if agreement could not be reached.
The court was tasked with determining the appropriate orders for the disposition of funds held by solicitors and the management of bank accounts held by a multitude of companies. Specifically, the court had to decide whether to order the transfer of funds between legal representatives, whether to continue holding certain funds in trust, and whether to restrain the Applicant Husband and the Second Respondent from dealing with specific company bank accounts. The court also considered the application of section 114(3) and section 90AF(2)(a) of the *Family Law Act* in relation to these orders.
Judge McNab ordered the transfer of a significant sum from one firm of solicitors to another, to be held pending trial. Further, the court ordered the transfer of $15,000 to a controlled monies account and continued to hold another $15,000 in trust. Crucially, the Applicant Husband was restrained from dealing with a term deposit of approximately $44,000, save for rolling it over. The court also substituted existing account freezing orders with new ones, restraining the Applicant Husband from withdrawing funds from a lengthy list of company bank accounts without the First Respondent's consent, and similarly restraining the Second Respondent from dealing with specific company accounts, including one in liquidation. These orders were directed to be given effect by the relevant financial institutions pursuant to the *Family Law Act*. The Applicant Husband was ordered to pay the First Respondent's costs on an indemnity basis, with a process set for the determination of quantum if agreement could not be reached.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Injunction
-
Jurisdiction
-
Remedies
-
Stay of Proceedings
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
2
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd
[1993] FCA 536
Oshlack v Richmond River Council
[1998] HCA 11