Varley and Varley

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VARLEY & VARLEY [2016] FCCA 2609

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Application to amend final orders – not a slip rule – application misconceived.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.79A, 79A(1)(a)

Cases cited:

Taylor & Taylor (1979) FLC 90-674

Official Trustee inBankruptcy & Bryan and The Estate of Christine Ann Gatenby (deceased) (2006) FLC 93-258
Pelerman & Pelerman (2000) FLC 93-037
Clifton & Stuart (1991) FLC 92-194
Rohde & Rohde (1984) FLC 91-592

Applicant: MS VARLEY

Respondent: MR VARLEY

File Number: DGC 616 of 2016

Judgment of: Judge Harland

Hearing date: 27 September 2016

Date of Last Submission: 27 September 2016

Delivered at: Dandenong

Delivered on: 27 September 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Samson

Solicitors for the Applicant: Peninsula Law

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Dunlop

Solicitors for the Respondent: Roberts Beckwith Partners

ORDERS

1. The application in a case filed 15 September 2016 be dismissed.

2. The Applicant pay the costs of the Respondent fixed in the sum of $3,742.20 such costs to be deducted from the Applicant’s share in the proceeds of sale.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Varley & Varley is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

DGC 616 of 2016

MS VARLEY

Applicant

And

MR VARLEY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These reasons for judgment were delivered orally.  They have been corrected from the transcript.  Grammatical errors have been corrected and an attempt has been made to render the orally delivered reasons amenable to being read.

2. This is an application in a case seeking orders that final orders that were made on 18 August 2016 by a Registrar of this Court following a resolution of the matters on a final basis at a conciliation conference be amended.  The wife’s case is that she and her lawyer made a mistake and failed to realise that the orders did not include debts in her name to (omitted) that total approximately $23,000.  The wife has deposed with two affidavits in support, one by her and the other by her solicitor. The application in a case filed 15 September 2016. This type of amendment does not fall within amendments with the slip rule.

3. Her solicitor also represented her client at the conciliation conference.  She refers to herself and her lawyer overlooking the fact that order 1 of the orders did not include the wife’s debts.  Order 1(ii) lists various debts to creditors to be paid from the net proceeds of sale of the home.  Order 2 of those orders provides for the wife to otherwise indemnify the husband with respect to any other debts incurred in her name that are not identified in order 1, inclusive of any liabilities for (omitted).

4. There were several debts that the parties had, many of which were consolidated with (omitted). The wife filed an affidavit in support of her application, which was amended on 23 September. The wife seeks that the…