Krupin & Krupin (No 3)

[2024] FedCFamC1F 61

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Krupin & Krupin (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 61

File number(s):

BRC 5459 of 2014

Judgment of:

HOWARD J

Date of judgment:

14 February 2024

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – ADDENDUM – Correction of the Reasons for Judgment pursuant to r 10.14(b) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Variation of reasons where the trial judge is not functus officio – Where the variation made is not inconsistent with the Reasons for Judgment originally issued and does not alter the substance of the original reasons.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 10.14.

Cases cited:

Bromley v Bromley [1965] P111

Carroll v Price (1960) VR651

In the marriage of Swaney & Ward (1988) FLC 91-928

Pittalls And Others v Sherefettin (1986) QB 868

R v Jones; R v Hilli (No 2) (2010) 79 NSWLR 143

Smith v New South Wales Bar Association (No 2) (1992) 176 CLR 256

Division:

Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs:

6

Date of hearing:

14 March 2024

Place:

Brisbane

Counsel for the applicant:

Mr Waterman

Solicitor for the applicant:

Hofstee Lawyers

Counsel for the first respondent:

Mr Jones

Solicitor for the first respondent:

Robert Bax & Associates

Counsel for the second respondent:

Mr Hartnett

Solicitor for the second respondent:

Genuine Legal

Third and Fourth Respondents:

Litigants in person

ORDERS

BRC 5459 of 2014

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MR KRUPIN

Applicant

AND:

MS KRUPIN

First Respondent

MS ANGELOFF

Second Respondent

MS PETROV

Third Respondent

B PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	HOWARD J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 FEBRUARY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to r 10.14(b) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), the Reasons for Judgment are amended to delete the reference to “all the parties” in paragraph 157 and to change the reference to “the parties to the s 79 property settlement proceedings, namely [Mr Krupin] and [Ms Krupin] (note Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 7)”.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Krupin & Krupin has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Howard J

1. This matter proceeded to trial in May and July 2023. Reasons for Judgment were delivered on 9 February 2024. The parties have been given time to draft Orders to reflect the Reasons for Judgment.

2. A review of the judgment at paragraph 157 has prompted the Court to make a variation to those reasons. Paragraph 157 originally read:

   “In the circumstances of this case it is appropriate for the Court to include the [G Street] asset in the general property pool on behalf of [Mr Krupin] and [Ms Krupin] – even though it is owned by the trust. That is the way that the case has been run by all parties. It is convenient and appropriate to take this approach in this particular instance.”

3. The amended paragraph 157 now reads:

   “In the circumstances of this case it is appropriate for the Court to include the [G Street] asset in the general property pool on behalf of [Mr Krupin] and [Ms Krupin] – even though it is owned by the trust. That is the way that the case has been run by the parties to the s 79 property settlement proceedings, namely [Mr Krupin] and [Ms Krupin] (note Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 7). It is convenient and appropriate to take this approach in this particular instance.”

4. The Reasons for Judgment in paragraph 157 have been varied pursuant to r 10.14(b) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). The original paragraph 157 contained an accidental slip requiring amendment.

5. I note that, in addition to the slip rule – the Reasons for Judgment can be amended at any time up until the making of the final order. A trial judge is not functus officio until the time of the issuing by the Court of the final order: In the marriage of Swaney & Ward (1988) FLC 91-928; Carroll v Price (1960) VR651 at page 657; Pittalls And Others v Sherefettin (1986) QB 868 at page 879; Smith v New South Wales Bar Association (No 2) (1992) 176 CLR 256 at page 265.

6. Further, it is important to note that the amendment to the reasons that has been made does not in any way alter the substance of the Reasons for Judgment. The amendment made is not in any way inconsistent with the Reasons for Judgment originally issued: Bromley v Bromley [1965] P111; R v Jones; R v Hilli (No 2) (2010) 79 NSWLR 143.[1]

   [1]   At paragraph 150.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Howard.

Associate:

Dated:       14 February 2024