Tredrea and Geller and Ors (No 2) - [2016] FamCA 949

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TREDREA & GELLER AND ORS (NO 2)

[2016] FamCA 949

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – where the applicant seeks enforcement of a term of an order for property settlement – where the respondents oppose the application – where the application involves farming land – where the applicant asserts she is entitled to an option to purchase – where consideration is given to the interpretation of the order – where the respondents are not bound by any purported option at the time of the transfer of the interest in the property to them – where the purchasers are bona fide purchasers without notice – where in any event the Court considers the order creates only a pre-emptive right and not an option – where the application is dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Real Property Act 1886 (SA) s 69, 71

Antonarkis & Delly (1976) FLC 90-063
Ascot Investments Pty Ltd v Harper (1981) 148 CLR 337
Bahr v Nicolay(No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 604
Bursill Enterprises Pty Ltd v Berger Bros Trading Co Pty Ltd (1971) 124 CLR 73
Frazer v Walker [1967] 1 AC 569
Hughes & Hughes [2013] FamCAFC 146
Laybutt v Amoco Australia Pty Ltd (1974) 132 CLR 57
Repatriation Commission v Nation (1995) 57 FCR 25
R v Dovey; Ex Parte Ross (1979) 141 CLR 526
R v Ross-Jones; Ex parte Green (1984) 156 CLR 185
Sanders v Sanders (1967) 116 CLR 366
Tredrea & Geller and Ors [2016] FamCA 634
Westfield Management Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd (2007) 233 CLR 528
Yunghanns & Yunghanns (1999) 24 Fam LR 400

APPLICANT:

Ms Tredrea

1st RESPONDENT:

Ms Geller

2nd RESPONDENT:

Ms Merritt

3rd RESPONDENT:

Ms Johns

4th RESPONDENT:

Mr Fuller

FILE NUMBER:

ADC

2149

2016

DATE DELIVERED:

9 November 2016

PLACE DELIVERED:

Adelaide

PLACE HEARD:

Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF:

Berman J

HEARING DATE:

13, 14 and 16 September 2016

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Applicant in Person

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

COUNSEL FOR THE 1^ST RESPONDENT:

Mr Hemsley

SOLICITOR FOR THE 1^ST RESPONDENT:

Heuzenroeder Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE 2^ND RESPONDENT:

Mr Hemsley

SOLICITOR FOR THE 2^ND RESPONDENT:

Heuzenroeder Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE 3^RD RESPONDENT:

Mr Hemsley

SOLICITOR FOR THE 3^RD RESPONDENT:

Heuzenroeder Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE 4^TH RESPONDENT:

SOLICITOR FOR THE 4^TH RESPONDENT:

Mr Hemsley

Heuzenroeder Lawyers

Orders

That the Further Amended Application in a Case filed 29 August 2016 be dismissed.
That all proceedings be removed from the pending list of cases.

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 Tredrea & Geller and Ors (No 2) 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…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tredrea and Geller and Ors (No 2) 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: [2016] FamCA 949
Decision Date: 9 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Tredrea and Geller and Ors (No 2)*, Berman J of the Supreme Court of Victoria considered an application filed by the applicant, Tredrea, against respondents Geller and others. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but the court was tasked with determining the fate of the applicant's Further Amended Application in a Case filed on 29 August 2016.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's application should be dismissed and whether the proceedings should be removed from the court's pending list. This required the court to assess the continued viability or appropriateness of the ongoing litigation.

Berman J ordered the dismissal of the Further Amended Application in a Case filed on 29 August 2016. Consequently, the court also ordered that all proceedings be removed from the pending list of cases. These orders are subject to formal entry in the Court’s records.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Further Amended Application in a Case filed 29 August 2016 be dismissed.

That all proceedings be removed from the pending list of cases.

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.