|
Some of my Reported Cases
Jonah & White [2011]
FamCA 221 (April 2011)
Family
Court of Australia
(Appeared for the Respondent)
When the Federal Government
amended the Family Law Act in 2009 to extend it to
cover de facto as well as married couples, there was widespread
media concern that this would mean mistresses would be entitled
to claim half of a man’s assets.
This case related to Ms Jonah and
Mr White, who were in an intimate relationship from early 1992
until early 2009. During that time Mr White was married and
living with his wife and three children. Ms Jonah and Mr
White’s relationship was a secret and Ms Jonah lived in her own
homes in Sydney, Brisbane and a northern New South Wales town.
Ms Jonah and Mr White spent two to three days together, every
two to three weeks, either at Ms Jonah’s home or Mr White’s
farm. There were some occasions when they spent two or so weeks
together, including an overseas trip. Mr White assisted Ms
Jonah with $24,000.00 towards the purchase of her Brisbane home
and paid her $2,000.00 to $3,000.00 per month so that she would
not have to work and was, therefore, free to visit him at his
farm when he wished. The parties otherwise kept their finances
separate. They did not have any children together.
Justice Murphy found that Ms
Jonah and Mr White’s relationship did not satisfy the Family
Law Act definition of a de facto relationship. Ms Jonah
was not, therefore, entitled to a property settlement or
“spouse” maintenance from Mr White.
Webb & French [2009] FamCA 357 (6 May 2009)
Family
Court of Australia
(Appeared for the Applicant)
This was a property settlement case where the value of husband
shares in a company whose sole asset was shares in another
company which owns a motel and caravan park– all of the shares
were transferred to husband’s mother and the company wound up
and deregistered - there was argument by wife that an informal
family agreement provided for the husband to receive a greater
share of the sale proceeds of the motel and caravan park than
was reflected in his shareholdings – There were valuations
undertaken by single experts of realty and shares - A nil value
attributed to the shares formerly held by husband.
Crestin & Crestin & Ors (2008) FLC ¶ 93-368
Full
Court of the Family Court of Australia (28 May 2008)
(Appeared for the Respondent Mother at the trial at first
instance)
This
was an Appeal against a decision by Steele J. who was found by
the Full Court to have denied the Respondent Mother natural
justice.
There was an error by the trial judge in failing to produce
brief reasons as the transcript did not adequately reveal his
reasoning process that it was in the child's best interests to
make orders which he did for time to be spent with the paternal
grandparents each weekend.
Sophronia & Sophronia [2007] FamCA 1351 (19 November 2007)
Family
Court of Australia
(Appeared for the Respondent)
How
the Court treated the parent's obligation to care for
twins with moderate to severe autism both with regard to
property and parenting issues.
Cody
& Trinh [2007] FamCA 1013 (4 September 2007)
Family Court of Australia
(Appeared for the Children)
How
the Court determined the
best interest of the children where there were serious
allegations of abuse.
BURGESS
v. KING (2006) DFC ¶ 95-328
NSW Court of Appeal delivered 18 November 2005
(Appeared for the Appellant)
The
failure to of the trial judge (Young J.) to consider the
possibility of the plaintiff sharing in the capital increase of
the defendant's home to which he had contributed financially
and/or the giving of erroneous reasons for rejecting it was an
error sufficient to justify appellate intervention.
PIERCE, LA v PIERCE, EA (1999) FLC ¶ 92-844
Full Court of the Family Court of Australia at Sydney Judgment
delivered 10 June 1998
(Appeared
for the appellant husband)
This important case is an often cited for the following
proposition:
"In our opinion it is not so much a matter of erosion of
contribution but a question of what is to be attached, in all
the circumstances, to the initial contribution. It is necessary
to weigh the initial contributions by the party with all other
relevant contributions of husband and wife. In considering the
weight to be attached to the initial contribution, in the case
of the husband, regard must be had to the use made by the
parties of that contribution. In the present case that use was
the substantial contribution to the purchase price of the
matrimonial home."
PELLEGRINO, J v PELLEGRINO, O (1997) FLC ¶ 92-789
Family Court of Australia at Sydney Judgment delivered 23
October 1997, Chisholm J.
(Appeared for the husband)
In determining the intention of the wife's parents in providing
a benefit to the parties, judicial notice may be taken of the
fact that parents frequently make provision for their children
in a manner which does not involve the formulation or
consideration of whether they intend to benefit their own child,
or both parties to the marriage: see Gosper and Gosper (1987)
FLC ¶ 91-818; Kessey and Kessey (1994) FLC ¶ 92-495; (1994) 18
Fam LR 149; Rickaby and Rickaby (1995) FLC ¶ 92-642; (1995) 19
Fam LR 814, which were considered.
P
v P (1995) FLC ¶ 92-615
High Court of Australia Judgment delivered 20 April 1994
(Appeared for the wife led by D.F. Jackson Q.C.)
The High Court decided that the Family Law Act 1975 confers
power on the Family Court of Australia the power to make an
order authorising a person to carry out on a child of a marriage
medical treatment in New South Wales that is intended, or is
reasonably likely, to have the effect of rendering the child
permanently infertile, in circumstances where the carrying out
of the treatment would otherwise be contrary to the Guardianship
Act 1987 (NSW)?
In
the matter of P (a child)
(1993) FLC ¶ 92-376
Full Court of the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne
Judgment delivered 23 April 1993
(Appeared for the wife)
While natural justice will require that parents are given all
reasonable opportunity to present the evidence relevant to
support their "case" it will not justify an unlimited right to
have a child medically examined so at the expense of the
interests of the children.
BLACK
v. BLACK (1991) DFC ¶ 95-113
NSW
Court of Appeal delivered 14 November 1991
(Appeared for the Respondent)
This
case at the time was a milestone as it dealt with fundamental
issues like how to treat home-maker contributions, presumptions
of equality in long relationships and the application of Family
Law Act cases to property proceedings between unmarried couples.
MAGRO, P.A. and MAGRO, R.M. (1989) FLC ¶ 92-005
Family Court of Australia at Parramatta. Judgment delivered 10
February 1989, Rourke J.
(Appeared for the wife)
One of the first significant solicitor conflict of interest
cases in the Family Court.
|
