Wu and Heaton-Wu

Case [2011] FMCAfam 144


FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WU & HEATON-WU [2011] FMCAfam 144
FAMILY LAW – Final property settlement – application by intervener – spousal maintenance – just and equitable.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.72, 75(2), 79, 80, 81, 83, 90AE
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), s.18
Strahan & Strahan (interim property orders) [2009] FamCAFC 166
Yates & Yates [2009] FamCA 1023
Puddy v Grossvard and Another (2010) 43 Fam LR 288
I Ltd v Chester [2010] FamCAFC 251
Ferdinand & Ferdinand & Anor [2010] FMCAfam 465
Worsnop v Worsnop (No.2) [2007] FamCA 1315
Hickey and Hickey and Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 30 Fam LR 355
C v C (2005) 33 Fam LR 414
AJO v GRO (2005) FLC 93-218
Kowaliw and Kowaliw (1981) FLC 91-092
Re NHC and RCH (2004) FLC 93-204
Finlayson and Finlayson [2002] FamCA 898
Aleksovski & Aleksovski (1996) FLC 92-705
Norbis & Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513
Wilson and Wilson (1989) 13 Fam LR 205
Tomasetti & Tomasetti (2000) FLC 93-023
Warby and Warby (2002) FLC 93-091
Trustee for the Bankrupt Estate of N Lasic & Lasic [2010] FamCA 682
Firth v Centrelink [2002] NSW SC 451
Clauson & Clauson [1995] 18 Fam LR 693
In the Marriage of Anast and Anastopoulos [1981] 7 Fam LR 728
Vakil & Vakil (1997) FLC 92-743
Vailes & Vailes [2010] FMCAfam 391
Applicant: MR WU
Respondent: MS HEATON-WU
Intervener MICHAEL CONLEY LAWYERS
File Number: SYC 1805 of 2009
Judgment of: Pascoe CFM
Hearing date: 14 February 2011
Date of Last Submission: 14 February 2011
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 19 April 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Watkins
Solicitors for the Applicant: N/A – Direct Brief
Counsel for the Respondent: Self-represented
Solicitors for the Respondent: Self-represented
Counsel for the Intervener: Mr Millar
Solicitors for the Respondent: Self-represented

ORDERS

  1. That by way of final property settlement, Mr Wu (the husband) and
    Ms Heaton-Wu (the wife) do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to allow the funds in ANZ Bank Account Number [omitted] in the name of Robert Van Aalst and Michael Conley representing the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial property, together with any interest, be paid as follows:

    (a)$134,265.75 to the husband; and

    (b)$124,198.75 to the Intervener, Michael Conley Lawyers.

    With any additional interest to be divided 50% to the husband and 50% to the Intervener.

  2. That the husband Mr Wu pay to Legal Aid NSW the sum of $2,259.20 such sum being a further contribution towards the provision of an Independent Children’s Lawyer in family law proceedings and that such payment be made within three months of the date of these orders.

  3. The injunction restraining the husband from accessing or in any way dealing with 50% (20,000) of his [P] Options be discharged.

  4. The husband retain to the exclusion of the wife:

    (a)The [P] Options;

    (b)The BMW Motor Vehicle;

    (c)Bank accounts, furniture, jewellery and musical instruments in his possession;

    (d)[G] Finance Pty Ltd investment and associated liability;

    (e)[I] Pty Ltd liability;

Continue reading Wu and Heaton-Wu

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Wu and Heaton-Wu [2011] FMCAfam 144
Case
[2011] FMCAfam 144
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wu and Heaton-Wu, the parties, Mr Wu (the husband) and Ms Heaton-Wu (the wife), were before the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia to resolve their property settlement issues following their divorce. The court was tasked with deciding the distribution of the proceeds from the sale of their matrimonial home and other assets, as well as resolving disputes over various personal and financial assets and liabilities. The case also involved the division of superannuation interests and the allocation of spousal maintenance.

The court examined the financial contributions of both parties, the needs of the wife and any children of the marriage, and the principles of fairness as outlined in the Family Law Act. The wife contended that the husband's financial contributions were minimal, and that she should receive a larger share of the assets. The husband argued for an equal division of assets and a reduction in spousal maintenance. The court considered these arguments and the evidence provided by both parties, ultimately determining the division of assets and liabilities in line with the legal principles governing family law.

In its decision, the court ordered the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home to be divided between the husband and an intervener, with interest on the balance to be split equally. The husband was required to make a further contribution to Legal Aid NSW for the provision of an Independent Children’s Lawyer. The court also ordered the discharge of an injunction concerning the husband's options, and detailed the division of personal property, investments, and liabilities. Spousal maintenance was set at $200 per week until a specified date, after which it was to be permanently discharged.

The final orders included detailed instructions for the division of assets, the payment of spousal maintenance, and provisions for enforcement in case either party failed to comply with the court's directives. The court empowered the Registrar to enforce compliance if necessary, ensuring that the terms of the settlement were carried out.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That by way of final property settlement, Mr Wu (the husband) and

Ms Heaton-Wu (the wife) do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to allow the funds in ANZ Bank Account Number [omitted] in the name of Robert Van Aalst and Michael Conley representing the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial property, together with any interest, be paid as follows:

(a) $134,265.75 to the husband; and

(b) $124,198.75 to the Intervener, Michael Conley Lawyers.

With any additional interest to be divided 50% to the husband and 50% to the Intervener.

2.

That the husband Mr Wu pay to Legal Aid NSW the sum of $2,259.20 such sum being a further contribution towards the provision of an Independent Children’s Lawyer in family law proceedings and that such payment be made within three months of the date of these orders.

3.

The injunction restraining the husband from accessing or in any way dealing with 50% (20,000) of his [P] Options be discharged.

4.

The husband retain to the exclusion of the wife:

(a) The [P] Options;

(b) The BMW Motor Vehicle;

(c) Bank accounts, furniture, jewellery and musical instruments in his possession;

(d) [G] Finance Pty Ltd investment and associated liability;

(e) [I] Pty Ltd liability;

(f) His credit card liabilities.

5.

The wife retain to the exclusion of the husband:

(a) Jewellery and furniture in her possession;

(b) The Michael Conley Trust Account;

(c) Liabilities arising from personal loans to Ms H, Aunt G and the [C];

(d) Liability arising from debt to husband.

6.

The husband retain the artwork in storage and at the wife’s residence (item 10 on balance sheet), including but not limited to the Mr C drawing.

7.

The wife retain the items of furniture currently in storage (item 11 on balance sheet), conditional on her giving any children’s possessions or children’s items amongst the stored items to the husband.

8.

That the husband pay to the wife by way of spousal maintenance $200 per week until 3 July 2011, upon which date the husband’s obligation to pay spousal maintenance will be discharged permanently. The final payment of $200 will be for the week commencing Monday 27 June 2011.

9.

If either party shall refuse or neglect to sign any document or do any such thing as may be reasonably required to give effect to this Order within 14 days of the service of a demand upon him or her to execute such document or to do such thing, pursuant to s.106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the Registrar of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia is empowered to sign such document and to direct such things to be done in the name of the party in default.

NOTATION

A. The husband and wife have each already paid a contribution of $1,650.00 to Legal Aid NSW and the amount at order 2 above is a further contribution.

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.