Thorpe and Thorpe and Anor

Link copied
Case Copied 11 min read

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THORPE & THORPE AND ANOR [2012] FamCA 719
FAMILY LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Part heard application by a third party for summary dismissal of wife’s claim – Whether the wife’s application is doomed to fail – Whether the wife has established a claim in equity in respect of land owned by third party - wife’s application against third party dismissed
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117
APPLICANT: Ms Thorpe
FIRST RESPONDENT: Mr Thorpe
SECOND RESPONDENT: Ms R Thorpe
FILE NUMBER: CSC 547 of 2009
DATE DELIVERED: 4 July 2012
PLACE DELIVERED: Cairns
PLACE HEARD: Cairns
JUDGMENT OF: Benjamin J
HEARING DATE: 4 July 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Sinclair
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Bottoms English Lawyers
COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: Mr P Tree S.C

SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST

RESPONDENT:

Apels Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND

RESPONDENT:

Mr P Tree S.C

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND

RESPONDENT:

Farrellys Lawyers

Orders

  1. The proceedings brought by the applicant wife against the second respondent are summarily dismissed.

  2. The applicant wife shall pay the first and second respondent’s costs determined in accordance with the Rules and scales under the Family Law Act (including certification for Senior Counsel), payment of such costs to be stayed pending either determination of the property proceedings between the husband and wife or such other time as is ordered by a Court exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act.

  3. The costs application of the husband as against the wife in respect of the summary dismissal application be reserved.

  4. These proceedings be adjourned to a Registrar’s Directions hearing at 10.00 am on 27 August 2012 at Cairns in respect of the property proceedings between the husband and wife.

    IT IS CERTIFIED

  5. Pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage senior counsel to attend.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CAIRNS

FILE NUMBER: CSC 547 of 2009

Ms Thorpe

Applicant

And

Mr Thorpe

First Respondent

Ms R Thorpe

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. These are part heard proceedings for the summary dismissal of equitable proceedings either accrued to this Court or under the relatively new provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Family Law Act”) with regard to third parties.

  2. The application was first heard by me in October last year and was the subject of significant debate as to the nature of the claim against the second respondent.  After hearing submissions, I considered those matters and delivered reasons in relation to the application.  The reason I did so is quite clear, that the claim made against the third party or the second respondent had some defects which, effectively, made the claim almost fatally flawed.  It seemed to me that the claim of the wife in…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Thorpe and Thorpe and Anor and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2012] FamCA 719
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Thorpe and Thorpe and Anor*, the applicant wife brought proceedings against the first respondent husband and the second respondent. The specific nature of the dispute is not detailed, but the court, presided over by Benjamin J, was required to consider an application for summary dismissal of the wife's proceedings against the second respondent.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the wife's proceedings against the second respondent were so lacking in merit that they should be dismissed without a full hearing. This involved an assessment of the evidence and legal arguments presented to determine if there was a sufficient basis to proceed to trial.

Benjamin J found that the proceedings brought by the applicant wife against the second respondent lacked sufficient merit to warrant a full hearing and therefore summarily dismissed them. The court ordered that the applicant wife pay the costs of both the first and second respondents, with the payment of these costs stayed pending the determination of the property proceedings between the husband and wife. The court also reserved the husband's costs application against the wife concerning the summary dismissal application and adjourned the property proceedings to a future date. The court certified that it was reasonable to engage senior counsel in the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The proceedings brought by the applicant wife against the second respondent are summarily dismissed.

2.

The applicant wife shall pay the first and second respondent’s costs determined in accordance with the Rules and scales under the Family Law Act (including certification for Senior Counsel), payment of such costs to be stayed pending either determination of the property proceedings between the husband and wife or such other time as is ordered by a Court exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act.

3.

The costs application of the husband as against the wife in respect of the summary dismissal application be reserved.

4.

These proceedings be adjourned to a Registrar’s Directions hearing at 10.00 am on 27 August 2012 at Cairns in respect of the property proceedings between the husband and wife.

IT IS CERTIFIED

5.

Pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage senior counsel to attend.

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.