Veni and Pallas - [2013] FamCA 607

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VENI & PALLAS

[2013] FamCA 607

FAMILY LAW – Interim injunctions sought relating to property of the respondent where marriage and/or de facto relationship disputed – Requirement that there be evidence to satisfy the test that it must be proper to make the order – Order refused. Caveat lodged order to be removed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Mullen and De Bry [2006] FamCA 1380

APPLICANT:

Mr Veni

RESPONDENT:

Ms Pallas

FILE NUMBER:

MLC

2916

2013

DATE DELIVERED:

20 August 2013

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

PLACE HEARD:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Cronin J

HEARING DATE:

9 August 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Hutchins

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Nicholsons Lawyers & Consultants

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Mort

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Lampe Family Lawyers

Orders

That forthwith, the applicant Mr Veni remove Caveat … lodged on the property at B Street, Suburb C in respect of Certificate of Title Volume … Folio ...
That the application by the applicant for interim orders filed 8 July 2013 is dismissed.

IT IS CERTIFIED:

That pursuant to Order 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend.
That all outstanding applications are referred to the Registrar to await a trial before a judge.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Veni & Pallas 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 2916 of 2013

Mr Veni

Applicant

And

Ms Pallas

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Mr Veni (“the applicant”) filed an application in this Court on 16 April 2013 seeking a decree of nullity of what he said was his marriage to Ms Pallas (“the respondent”) which he said took place in 2011. It was not clear what the ground for the application was but on 8 July 2013, the applicant filed an amended application seeking an unidentified and imprecise alteration of property under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) or, if his nullity application was dismissed, then declarations be made that he was in a de facto relationship with the respondent and consequential but again, unidentified and imprecise relief by way of alteration of property issues.
The respondent denied there was a marriage or a de facto relationship either.
The issue before me in the Judicial Duty List on 9 August 2013 was whether the respondent should be restrained from selling, transferring, encumbering or otherwise dealing with a property in Suburb D and another in Suburb C. The applicant also sought disclosure of the alleged marriage ceremony.
By her response filed 5 August 2013, the respondent sought a dismissal of the applicant’s application and orders that he remove a caveat over the Suburb C property.
The background and facts of this case border on the bizarre.
In his affidavit filed 16 April 2013, the applicant said the marriage ceremony was performed…

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 Veni and Pallas

Details

AGLC: Veni and Pallas [2013] FamCA 607
Case: [2013] FamCA 607
Decision Date: 20 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Veni and Pallas, heard before Cronin J, the applicant, Mr Veni, sought the removal of a caveat lodged on a property located at B Street, Suburb C. The application by Mr Veni for interim orders, filed on 8 July 2013, was subsequently dismissed.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the caveat lodged by Mr Veni on the specified property should be removed. This involved an assessment of the validity and enforceability of the interest claimed by Mr Veni, which underpinned the lodgement of the caveat.

Cronin J ordered the immediate removal of the caveat lodged by Mr Veni on the property. The court also dismissed Mr Veni's application for interim orders. Further, the court certified that it was reasonable to engage counsel and referred all outstanding applications to the Registrar for a trial before a judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

That forthwith, the applicant Mr Veni remove Caveat … lodged on the property at B Street, Suburb C in respect of Certificate of Title Volume … Folio ...

That the application by the applicant for interim orders filed 8 July 2013 is dismissed.

IT IS CERTIFIED:

That pursuant to Order 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend.

That all outstanding applications are referred to the Registrar to await a trial before a 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.