Tsoutsouvas & Tsoutsouvas and Ors

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TSOUTSOUVAS & TSOUTSOUVAS AND ORS [2012] FamCA 521
FAMILY LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Expert Evidence - Where leave is sought to rely upon adversarial experts where a single joint expert has already been appointed
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 258 ALR 14
Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146
APPLICANT: Ms M Tsoutsouvas
1st RESPONDENT: Mr V Tsoutsouvas
2nd RESPONDENT: Mr H Tsoutsouvas and Ms N Tsoutsouvas
FILE NUMBER: BRC 10291 of 2009
DATE DELIVERED: 21 June 2012
PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane
PLACE HEARD: Brisbane
JUDGMENT OF: Kent J
HEARING DATE: 2 March 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Matthews
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Edwards Lawyers
COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT: Ms Black
SOLICITOR FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT: Q Solicitors
COUNSEL FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENTS: Ms Black
SOLICITOR FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENTS: Q Solicitors

Orders

  1. The Wife have leave to adduce evidence from:

    (a)       Mr S as per his affidavit filed 23 November 2011;

    (b)       Mr B as per his affidavit filed 24 November 2011; and

    (c)       Mr D as per his affidavit filed 23 November 2011.

  2. The Husband’s application for permission to adduce evidence from Mr W be refused.

  3. The Husband have permission to adduce evidence from Mr C.

  4. The Second Respondents have permission to adduce evidence from Mr R.

  5. The costs of this hearing be reserved to the trial judge.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Tsoutsouvas & Tsoutsouvas and Ors 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 BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 10291 of 2009

Ms M Tsoutsouvas

Applicant

And

Mr V Tsoutsouvas and Mr H Tsoutsouvas and Ms N Tsoutsouvas

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. This matter commenced on 11 November 2009 with the filing of an Initiating Application by Ms M Tsoutsouvas (“the Wife”) for final property Orders against Mr V Tsoutsouvas (“the Husband”). Due to the Wife’s claim that she has an equitable interest in a property of which the Husband’s parents are the registered owners, the Husband’s parents, Mr H Tsoutsouvas and Ms N Tsoutsouvas (“the Second Respondents”), have also been joined as respondents in this matter.

  2. The parties are both presently 44 years of age. They married and commenced cohabitation in 1995 and remained living together until they finally separated in June 2009. Both parties are trained in the personal services industry.

  3. During their relationship, the parties founded and built a business known as T Business in Suburb F, an (initially) successful personal services business. The business has since been sold in what the Wife alleges are suspicious circumstances, but that is not an issue to be decided at an interim stage. The parties also accumulated significant amounts of real property during their relationship but that, too, has since been sold to reduce the liabilities of the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tsoutsouvas & Tsoutsouvas and Ors 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 521
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Tsoutsouvas & Tsoutsouvas and Ors*, Kent J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered applications by the parties to adduce further evidence in proceedings. The applications concerned the admissibility of affidavits from various individuals, including Mr S, Mr B, Mr D, Mr W, Mr C, and Mr R.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant or refuse permission for the parties to rely on the proposed evidence. This involved assessing the relevance and potential impact of the evidence on the determination of the substantive issues in the family law proceedings.

Kent J allowed the Wife to adduce evidence from Mr S, Mr B, and Mr D, finding it admissible. Conversely, the Husband's application to adduce evidence from Mr W was refused. However, the Husband was granted permission to adduce evidence from Mr C, and the Second Respondents were permitted to adduce evidence from Mr R. The Court ordered that the costs of this interlocutory hearing be reserved for determination by the trial judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Wife have leave to adduce evidence from:

(a) Mr S as per his affidavit filed 23 November 2011;

(b) Mr B as per his affidavit filed 24 November 2011; and

(c) Mr D as per his affidavit filed 23 November 2011.

2.

The Husband’s application for permission to adduce evidence from Mr W be refused.

3.

The Husband have permission to adduce evidence from Mr C.

4.

The Second Respondents have permission to adduce evidence from Mr R.

5.

The costs of this hearing be reserved to the trial judge.

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.