Vranic and Vranic and Ors

[2010] FamCA 1062

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VRANIC & VRANIC AND ORS [2010] FamCA 1062

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Bankruptcy – Leave for bankrupt to continue as a party to proceedings

WIFE: Ms Vranic

HUSBAND: Mr Vranic

RESPONDENT: Ms Muncic

RESPONDENT: M Pty Limited

RESPONDENT: Mr P as trustee of the Property of the husband

FILE NUMBER: SYF 6740 of 2002

DATE DELIVERED: 16 November 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: The Hon. Justice Cohen

HEARING DATE: 16 November 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Rayment QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Oliveri Attorneys

COUNSEL FOR THE TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE HUSBAND: Mr Johnson

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Sally Nash & Co Lawyers

Orders

1. That in lieu of the Trustee being obliged to file a Statement of Financial Circumstances the Trustee is to file an affidavit of the current financial situation of the relevant trust together with his assessment of the prospect of future change in the financial circumstances of the trust and such other evidence as he sees fit in these proceedings within fourteen (14) days from today.

2. That this matter is to be fixed for a final three (3) days of hearing on dates to be fixed on consultation with the legal representatives.

3. That in the event that the husband requires it leave is granted to the husband to continue as a party to the s79 proceedings with a right to be heard notwithstanding his bankruptcy and the jointer of the trustee of his property in his bankruptcy.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER:  SYF 6740 of 2002

MS VRANIC

Wife

And

MR VRANIC

Husband

And

MS MUNCIC AND ORS

RESPONDENTS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. It is my view that in the circumstance of this case, the husband can remain a party under the Family Law Act and does not need leave to be heard, but in the event that I am wrong, and he does need leave, this is a case where he ought to be entitled to leave, because the major thrust of all of the wife’s case is that he has acted fraudulently in many respects in relation to attempting to deprive the wife of what is her entitlement under section 79 of the Act.  So, if there is a need for leave, I grant leave.

I certify that the preceding one (1) paragraph is a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cohen delivered on 16 November 2010.

Associate:     

Date:              25 November 2010