Sutton and Sutton - [2017] FamCA 141

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SUTTON & SUTTON

[2017] FamCA 141

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – where company is in Country C – where wife is director – where husband wants wife removed for failing to comply with regulatory requirements – where wife denied default – where final hearing is pending – application refused.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Davis v Davis (1976) FLC 90,062
G v J (Ouster order) (1993) FLR 1008
Scholte and Scholte [2002] FamCA 69
Sieling v Sieling (1979) FLC 90,627

APPLICANT:

Ms Sutton

RESPONDENT:

Mr Sutton

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

9165

2015

DATE DELIVERED:

10 March 2017

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Cronin J

HEARING DATE:

8 March 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Brown QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Counsel Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Geddes QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Blackwood Family Lawyers

Orders

That paragraphs 17-19 of the husband’s amended response filed 4 January 2017 are adjourned to the trial judge for determination.
That paragraph 15(c)-(f) of the amended response seeking interim orders filed 4 January 2017 are dismissed.
That the interim orders sought by the wife in her further initiating application filed 1 March 2017 (save for the orders made by consent on 8 March 2017) are dismissed.

IT IS CERTIFIED:

That pursuant to Order 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage counsel, including senior counsel to attend for each party.

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 Sutton & Sutton 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 9165 of 2015

Ms Sutton

Applicant

And

Mr Sutton

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These are interlocutory proceedings between Ms Sutton (“the wife”) and Mr Sutton (“the husband”). As a result of hearing the interlocutory application on 8 March 2017, the substantive property proceedings between the parties were set down for final hearing in April 2017.
The immediate dispute revolves around the control of a corporate entity described in these reasons as B. It is unnecessary to describe it more other than to say it is based in Country C. It was “established” in 2004 and owns two real properties both of which are in Country C.
B appears to have two shareholders. One shareholder holds 95 per cent and is a corporation registered in the British Virgin Islands. Those shares are however said to be held as to 55 per cent on the husband’s behalf and 45 per cent on…

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 Sutton and Sutton

Details

AGLC: Sutton and Sutton [2017] FamCA 141
Case: [2017] FamCA 141
Decision Date: 10 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Sutton and Sutton*, heard by Cronin J, the dispute concerned applications for interim orders in family law proceedings. The husband had filed an amended response, and the wife had filed a further initiating application seeking interim relief.

The court was required to determine whether certain paragraphs of the husband's amended response should be adjourned for determination by the trial judge, and whether specific interim orders sought by both parties should be dismissed.

Cronin J ordered that paragraphs 17-19 of the husband’s amended response be adjourned to the trial judge. The court dismissed paragraphs 15(c)-(f) of the husband’s amended response seeking interim orders, and also dismissed the interim orders sought by the wife in her further initiating application, save for those made by consent. The court certified that it was reasonable for counsel, including senior counsel, to be engaged for each party.

Orders

Orders of the court

That paragraphs 17-19 of the husband’s amended response filed 4 January 2017 are adjourned to the trial judge for determination.

That paragraph 15(c)-(f) of the amended response seeking interim orders filed 4 January 2017 are dismissed.

That the interim orders sought by the wife in her further initiating application filed 1 March 2017 (save for the orders made by consent on 8 March 2017) are dismissed.

IT IS CERTIFIED:

That pursuant to Order 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage counsel, including senior counsel to attend for each party.

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

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.