How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Leon Your Own Question
Leon, Solicitor
Category: Australia Law
Satisfied Customers: 44191
Experience:  BEc Dip Ed, Dip Law (SAB) MTax (UNSW)
Type Your Australia Law Question Here...
Leon is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

REF; Family court of WA case 3108/10 and Appeal WA 10/2013 ,

Customer Question

REF; Family court of WA case 3108/10 and Appeal WA 10/2013 , the appeal saw a property settlement Trial of 2012 sent back to a new / retrial upon the grounds of " a lack of procedural fairness and miscarriage of justice to me at the trial of 21/11/2012,
the new trial to occur this year. Background. 1. In 2010 my then lawyer requested spousal maintenance for me and from the business enterprise being the farm and its machinery for me to earn my income. 2. August 6th 2010 the presiding magistrate said quote
"at the hearing the court use the expression "the business enterprise to convey that understanding. the court understands that the wife is drawing on her income from the Education dept for her ongoing support and that Mr Hills is using the income and resources
of the business for his ongoing support" 3. In September 2010 wife dissolves partnership supreme court ( the business enterprise ) so that she can sell my tools of trade and warns me not to use the machinery afforded to me by magistrate ( Judges ) on 6th of
August 2010. This would see some $140 000 of income lost immediately, for my income and paying partnership/marriage creditors. She froze the machinery from me. 4. In July 2011, she came onto the farm and took my machinery and sold it off without my knowledge,
she took expensive income earning and creditor paying machinery and sold it off, some to her son and his busniness. 5. On September 15th she then made application to the court to have what was left frozen from me, and the presiding magistrate Sutherland told
her "mr hills works as a farmer, and he derives his income as much as he can from the farming, (business enterprise) subject to seasonal conditions. " to the wifes lawyer the magistrate continued, "" I do not accept that there are or any orders in place that
give your client (Mrs Hills) the right to step in and unilaterally sell up his plant and equipment that Mr Hills might otherwise require to continue to earn an income." 6. the magistrate said to me " you are entitled to earn your income from the farm then
so be it. 7. the wifes attempt to freeze my equipment on 15th of sept 2011 failed . 8. the wife was ordered not to sell any equipment by the Magistrate. THE POINT. In view of the Dissolving of the partnership by the wife a month AFTER that of 6th of August
2010, then freezing my equipment from me , then taking my equipment and selling it so I could not earn an income , then applying to freeze what was left on Sept 15th 2010 and in the context of that of what she was told on 6th of August 2010 and then retold
by a different magistrate on 15th of September 2011, did the dissolving of the partnership in September 2010 hold precedent over that which was determined about my income source to see her rightfully do what she did contrary to that she was told.. DID THE
DISSOLVING OF THE PARTNERSHIP HAVE PRECEDENCE (priority ) over that of the family court.
Submitted: 2 years ago.
Category: Australia Law
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
I have no response to that transmitted at 4:37 pm today 3rd july 2015
Expert:  Leon replied 2 years ago.
Good Morning, My name is ***** ***** I am a NSW Solicitor. Thank you for your question, and will do my best to assist you with your question. Please understand this is not legal advise Please understand this is not legal advise but a guide to assist you.The Family Court deals with a property split. If the court had made orders that nothing be done with the assets and then your ex dissolved the partnership she is in breach but the funds that she has received from the sale of the tools has to be quarantined and held in trust for both of the parties. Further you as the other partner should have been notified of the Supreme Court action and defended it. Te Family Court would have taken action against her in the split taking into account the negatives and how they impacted on your from the Supreme Court Action. If she took the money and spent it, the Family Court would have adjusted any split taking that into account. There is no precedent of one court over the other. If you were in the Family Court when she filed the Supreme court action you could have asked the Supreme Court to Stay the action as it was part of the Family Court proceedings and if the court accepted the argument they would have stopped it until the family law action had finished. I cannot tell you more than this.I hope this makes sense and is of assistance. If there is nothing further thank you for using my services. If I have missed anything, or you have any further questions please let me know If there is anything else in the future please do not hesitate to ask. Please do not forget to leave positive feedback. RegardsLeon