Zamir & Zamir

Case [2021] FedCFamC1F 9


FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Zamir & Zamir [2021] FedCFamC1F 9

File number(s): PAC 2751 of 2021
Judgment of: HANNAM J
Date of judgment: 2 September 2021
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – INJUNCTIONS -Review of a Registrar’s decision – Where the wife seeks a broad injunction restraining the husband from disposing, dealing with or diminishing the value of assets held in his sole name – Where a risk exists that assets may be dissipated or disposed of by the husband – Where the wife seeks an injunction that the husband repay $1.9 million withdrawn from the offset account secured over the former family home – Where consideration of applicable principles – Where appropriate for an injunction to be granted restraining the husband pending further order – Where not appropriate for an injunction to be made requiring the husband to repay funds.
Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 114

Family Law Rules 2004 r 18.10(1)

Cases cited: Palmer v Parbery [2019] QCA 27
Patterson v BTR Engineer (Aust) Ltd (1989) NSWLR 319
Tsiang & Wu and Ors [2019] FamCAFC 128
Division: First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 91
Date of hearing: 12 August 2021
Place: Sydney
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Kearney SC
Solicitor for the Applicant: Unified Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Fermanis
Solicitor for the Respondent: Gramelis Attorneys

ORDERS

PAC 2751 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MR ZAMIR

Applicant

AND:

MS ZAMIR

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

HANNAM J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 SEPTEMBER 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT PENDING FURTHER ORDER:

1.Orders 1, 2 and 3 made 2 August 2021 be set aside.

2.The Husband be and is hereby restrained from:

(i)Transferring or encumbering, or causing to be transferred or encumbered, the property known as and situated at B Street, Suburb C, New South Wales, Certificate of Title Folio Identifier: … (“Suburb C Property”) registered in his sole personal name, without the wife’s prior written consent or except as permitted by an Order of the Court.

(ii)Withdrawing or transferring funds from any available redraw facility, credit facility, line of credit or home loan account held in his sole name (or jointly with any other person) with Westpac Banking Corporation, D Bank or any other financial institution secured over the Suburb C Property.

(iii)Removing from Australia or in any way disposing of, dealing with or diminishing the value of any assets in Australia (“Australia assets”) without the wife’s prior written consent or except as permitted by an Order of the Court.

(iv)Disposing of, dealing with or diminishing the value of any assets outside of Australia (“ex-Australia assets”) without the wife’s prior written consent or except as permitted by an Order of the Court.

3.The husband is permitted to operate upon any bank account in his name for the following purposes which operations are excluded from the restraint in Order 2:

(i)Meeting his day to day living expenses and those of the children in the usual course;

(ii)Making…

Continue reading Zamir & Zamir

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Zamir & Zamir [2021] FedCFamC1F 9
Case
[2021] FedCFamC1F 9
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Zamir & Zamir involved a dispute between the husband and wife over the division of property acquired during their marriage. The wife sought orders in relation to the husband's property, contending that they were reasonable and just in the circumstances. The dispute arose from the accumulation of property over the course of the marriage, including a house in Sydney and a property in the overseas country. The wife claimed that the husband had accumulated substantial assets, while she had made significant contributions to the family home and the upbringing of their children.

The legal issues before the court included determining whether the wife's claims regarding the ownership and value of the disputed property in the overseas country were accurate, and whether the wife was entitled to a share of the property in Sydney. The court also needed to consider the contributions made by each party to the acquisition of their property, as well as the needs and circumstances of each party, in accordance with the principles of the Family Law Act. The court had to weigh the evidence presented by both parties and determine whether the wife's claims were reasonable and just.

The court found that the wife's claims regarding the ownership and value of the disputed property in the overseas country were not substantiated by the evidence. The court held that the property in question was owned by the paternal grandfather and that the husband had not received a gift of the property. The court also found that the wife had made significant contributions to the acquisition and maintenance of the family home in Sydney, but that the husband's contributions were greater. The court took into account the husband's role as the principal breadwinner and the wife's role in caring for the children and the household. The court held that it was just and reasonable to make an order for the sale of the family home and for the proceeds to be divided equally between the parties.

The court ordered that the family home be sold and the proceeds divided equally between the parties. The court also made orders in relation to the distribution of other property owned by the parties. The wife was awarded a sum of money to compensate for her contributions to the family home and for her future needs. The husband was ordered to pay the wife's legal costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The question for me to determine is whether the orders sought by the wife in relation to the husband’s property are proper, that is, reasonable and just in the circumstances.BACKGROUND The parties who are both 45 were born in an overseas country (“the overseas country”). The wife migrated to Australia with her family as a child and met the husband, who is her first cousin, when he came to Australia for a holiday in about 1996. In 1997 the parties married in the overseas country and shortly thereafter the wife returned to Australia. In the early months of 1998 the husband arrived in Australia on a spousal visa and he and the wife began living together. The husband has since obtained Australian citizenship. Neither of the parties had any assets of substance at the commencement of their relationship. Over the course of their marriage the parties had five children, two of whom are now adults (“the adult children”). They also accumulated property including a house in Sydney though there is significant dispute about other property owned by the parties. After the birth of the adult children, the parties and those children moved to live in the overseas country for the purposes of the husband’s employment in a professional capacity. The parties each established bank accounts in the overseas country. In April of the following year, 2005, the family moved again in connection with the husband’s employment to another country (“the Middle Eastern country”). The husband also established a number of bank accounts in this country. The three youngest children (“the children”) were born in the Middle Eastern country where the family continued to live for some years. Throughout the marriage the husband, who is a very well paid professional, was the principal breadwinner while the wife was mainly involved in the care of the children and the household, though she also engaged in some paid employment outside the home. In 2012 a house was built in the overseas country on land owned by the paternal family. The wife claims that this land was given to the husband by his father (“the paternal grandfather”) and that the parties spent about $1 million dollars from accounts held in the husband’s name building and furnishing this house. The husband claims that the property in question is owned by the paternal grandfather and says that while he did provide financial assistance to the paternal grandfather for this house, it was never intended that he have an interest in the property (“the disputed property in the overseas country”). In 2015 the parties purchased a property in a Sydney suburb which was to become the family home (“the family home”). This property which was registered in the husband’s sole name was purchased for $2.4 million dollars using $480,000 in savings together with a loan of $1.92 million dollars advanced by a bank and secured by a mortgage. In October 2015 a term deposit account was opened in the overseas country in the name of the parties’ only son (then aged nine) in the sum of $1.1 million dollars. The husband operates this account through a Power of Attorney.

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.