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be dissipated or disposed of by the husband – Where the wife seeks an injunction that the husband repay $1.9 million withdrawn from the offset account secured over the former family home – Where consideration of applicable principles – Where appropriate for an injunction to be granted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 128Division: 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
- AGLC
- Zamir & Zamir [2021] FedCFamC1F 9
- Case
- [2021] FedCFamC1F 9
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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
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.