VETSCH & YOSUFAI AND ORS

[2020] FamCA 524

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VETSCH & YOSUFAI AND ORS [2020] FamCA 524

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – Where there are property and child support proceedings on foot between the first respondent and three women whom he has had relationships of varying length with – Where a statutory trustee of sale was appointed in May 2019 to sell a number of real properties – Where the statutory trustee has been progressing the matter but two properties remain to be sold – Where the matter is not yet ready to be listed for a final hearing and in the circumstances an adjournment is appropriate.

FAMILY LAW – CHILD SUPPORT – Where the first respondent has an outstanding child support liability – Where the Child Support Agency has been taking steps to recover the amount outstanding – Where the trustee of sale has been attempting to confirm with the Child Support Agency the amount outstanding – Where the court requests, through the provision of these reasons, that the Child Support Agency provide the trustee of sale, or the Court directly, with information relating to the first respondent’s outstanding child support liability.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Vetsch

RESPONDENT: Mr Yosufai

FIRST INTERVENER: Ms Devereux

SECOND INTERVENER: Ms Sultan

FILE NUMBER: BRC 10889 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 25 June 2020

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Forrest J

HEARING DATE: 25 June 2020

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: Self-represented

THE RESPONDENT: Self-represented

THE FIRST INTERVENER: Self-represented

THE SECOND INTERVENER: Self-represented

TRUSTEE FOR SALE: Mr G

Orders

1. That the matter be adjourned for further mention before his Honour Justice Forrest at 10.00 am on Monday, 26 October 2020, with leave granted to the parties to appear by telephone.

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 Vetsch & Yosufai 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 (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 10889 of 2016

Ms Vetsch

Applicant

And

Mr Yosufai

Respondent

And

Ms Devereux

First Intervener

And

Ms Sultan

Second Intervener

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Before me again this morning for mention are the proceedings between the applicant, Ms Vetsch, the respondent, Mr Yosufai, and intervening parties, Ms Devereux and Ms Sultan, in respect of competing applications for property adjustment orders and potentially child support departure and lump sum departure orders. 

2. The matter has been before the Court for a lengthy period of time now and is complicated by a number of factors.  Firstly, and foremost perhaps, it is complicated by the sheer number of parties involved.  Mr Yosufai had relationships of one sort or another with all three of the women who I have mentioned.  One, Ms Sultan, he was married to for quite a long period of time and has produced by that relationship a number of children, some of who are now adults, one of whom is the youngest and is now 15.  Mr Yosufai and Ms Vetsch were in a de facto relationship for some time, it did not produce any children.  Mr Yosufai and Ms Devereux were also in a de facto relationship for some time.  It produced two young children who live with their mother and who are only 5 and 3 years of age, for whom Ms Devereux says Mr Yosufai is liable to the Child Support Agency at the moment for at least around $7,000 of unpaid child support. 

3. It is also complicated by the fact that there are a number of real properties involved in which each of the women have interests in varying degrees.  It is further complicated by the fact that there were substantial mortgage liabilities owing with respect to many of these properties and at least two banks who were the mortgagees of the properties determined to exercise powers of sale of mortgagees in possession and that has taken place. 

4. Earlier in time in the proceedings I determined to appoint a trustee with the power of sale, Mr G.  But he came up against the unwillingness of the banks to allow him to sell the properties.  In the meantime though, he has remained in the position as trustee and is meritoriously gathering together all of the net proceeds of sale of these properties and securing the funds into trust determining what amounts are owed to which creditors, including most particularly the Australian Tax Office, and ultimately preparing the matter for the benefit of all of the parties and the Court to the extent that the Court would be able to look at a pool of cash and determine ultimately just and equitable property orders to make between Mr Yosufai and each of the three women, as well as any child support departure and lump sum child support orders that need to be made to provide appropriate financial support for the children in the future against an expectation that Mr Yosufai would not voluntarily be providing any himself. 

5. Today when the matter was mentioned before me, it became clear that it is not yet quite ready to go to trial.  Mr G filed an affidavit of evidence which he read and relied upon which tells me that there are two properties remaining that have not yet had sales finalised. One of them is under a contract and is due to settle in early August. The last property though, is not yet under contract but is on the market and being marketed for sale.  Mr G has therefore submitted to the Court that it would be appropriate to simply adjourn this matter over for further mention in approximately four months time to enable that process to take its course and, hopefully, the property will be sold and settled by then and we will have a better idea of how much money is likely to be available on a final basis for division. 

6. Mr G also deposed to having been contacted by the Child Support Agency and asked some questions in his role as trustee about Mr Yosufai and Mr Yosufai’s interests in the matter.  It seems that Mr Yosufai clearly currently has a liability to the Child Support Agency that is outstanding and the Child Support Agency, as is its duty and its statutory responsibility, is seeking to take steps to secure its interests and ultimately recover the amount of outstanding child support so that they can then discharge their responsibility and pay that to the parent who is caring for the children.  It seems reasonable to deduce that there is a liability in respect of about $7,000 with the Child Support Agency owing by Mr Yosufai for the two young children of Ms Devereux.  Mr G was not able to confirm that by way of communication from the Child Support Agency, probably because of the Child Support Agency relying on some privacy concerns or provisions and being a bit weary of Mr G’s involvement in the matter, when he is not representing Ms Devereux herself. 

7. In those circumstances I determined it appropriate to give these reasons this morning and to indicate through these reasons that it would be most helpful to all of the parties and to Mr G in this case, and particularly the Court, to be able to finalise the matter, if the Child Support Agency could provide either to Mr G, or if it remains unwilling to provide to Mr G, provide information to this court directly, providing detail of the nature of the liability that it is seeking to enforce and in respect of which children Mr Yosufai owes money for; how much it is that he owes; whether that continues to increase; whether it includes penalties and interest.  That sort of detail would be extremely beneficial and of assistance to the Court. 

8. The matter will be mentioned again by telephone at 10.00 am on Monday 26 October 2020.  Any appearance by or for the Child Support Agency if the Agency considers it necessary on that occasion would be welcome and they can find out how to dial in on that GlobalMeet number by contacting my associate at ... Suffice would be for them to provide the information through Mr G, the Court being satisfied that he will convey it appropriately to the Court.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Forrest delivered on 25 June 2020.

Associate: 

Date:  26 June 2020