Ledarn and Ledarn

[2012] FamCA 301

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LEDARN & LEDARN [2012] FamCA 301

FAMILY LAW - PROPERTY - Oral application for interim distribution of property

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Bing and Bing [2007] FamCA 418; (2007) FLC 93-318
Strahan and Strahan [2009] FamCAFC 166; (2011) FLC 93-466

APPLICANT: Mr Ledarn

RESPONDENT: Ms Ledarn

INTERVENOR:

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 6423 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 24 April 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 24 April 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Wilson

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Aughtersons

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Gates

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Taussig Cherrie Fildes

Orders

1. That all outstanding applications are adjourned to 10.00am on 14 May 2012 to be heard as an interim hearing subject only to part-heard matters.

2. That the wife pay to the husband $36,000 by way of partial distribution of property.

IT IS CERTIFIED:

1. That pursuant to Order 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend.

2. Reserve the costs of both parties of this day.

3. That the reasons be transcribed and made available to the parties.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 6423 of 2010

Mr Ledarn

Applicant

And

Ms Ledarn

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an oral application that I exercise the powers in s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) for the purposes of making a partial distribution of property to the husband. It is asserted by the husband that the pool of assets is somewhere in the vicinity of $30 million nett. $7 million of that is said to be in business valuations and about $20 million in real estate and the balance made up of bibs and bobs.

2. That figure is not conceded by the wife for the purposes of today’s hearing.  The hearing before me was in relation to another issue, namely, enforcement of a previous order made in 2010.  The husband says that he is effectively without funds and he wanted $36,000.  Having regard to what the Full Court said in Strahan’s case even without evidence to show that the pool is in the vicinity of $30 million, it must follow that the husband is entitled to at least $36,000 out of that entitlement. 

3. I am satisfied that there is evidence about contribution having regard to what I have previously read from the parties.  At least to the extent of $36,000, the husband can establish a contribution and the s 75(2) factors are in a case such as this largely irrelevant for the purposes of the interim exercise.  Under those circumstances it is just and equitable to make an order that $36,000 be paid to the husband.  As I pointed out in argument, the Full Court in Bing said that it is not the function of the Court to worry about the source of the funds.  I have made it very clear that when I hear the matter on 14 May if that payment is not made, the issue of enforcement will take as much importance as the issue that adjourned the hearing today.

I certify that the preceding Three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 24 April 2012.

Associate: 

Date:  4 May 2012