FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

redman & redman	[2012] FamCA 364	

FAMILY LAW - PROPERTY – Application for consent orders - Review of Registrar's decision - Application to transfer property in the husband's name to the names of both parties - Where parties are not separated	

	

APPLICANT:	Mr Redman	

RESPONDENT:	Ms Redman	

FILE NUMBER:	CAC	298		of	2012	

DATE DELIVERED:	27 April 2012	

PLACE DELIVERED:	Canberra	

PLACE HEARD:	Canberra	

JUDGMENT OF:	Faulks DCJ	

HEARING DATE:	27 April 2012	

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:		

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:	Mr Redman represented himself	

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:		

SOLICiTOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:	Ms Redman represented herself	

Orders
1.	The application for Consent Orders made on 28 February 2012 is dismissed and the matter is removed from the pending cases list.  

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Redman & Redman 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 Canberra	

FILE NUMBER: CAC 298 of 2012

Mr Redman 	
Applicant

And

Ms Redman	
Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1.	This application comes before me on review of a decision of the Registrar refusing to make the orders sought by the parties.  
2.	Upon enquiry of Mr Redman it became clear by inference, if not by direct admission, that the sole purpose for the orders was to transfer the family home in an intact marriage from his name to the names of both himself and his wife and to employ the Family Law Act 1975 and the consent orders system to achieve this so that stamp duty might be avoided.  
3.	Not only is it inappropriate and an abuse of process for orders to be made in such circumstances, but where the parties were unrepresented it was not clear to me that they would be aware of the fact that any orders made in this regard would be permanent orders and would preclude them from seeking to have other orders made if they subsequently did become engaged in a matrimonial dispute and were to separate and seek to divide their property.  My concern in this regard is increased by the fact that Mr Redman suggested that his wife’s knowledge of English was not as strong as it might be.  
4.	Finally, it is necessary for any orders that I might make to be just and equitable and the information available in relation to such orders was not available in the material filed.  This included, but is not confined to the failure to provide any details in relation to the husband’s superannuation entitlements.  

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Deputy Justice Faulks delivered on 27 April 2012.

Legal Associate:  

Date:  3 May 2012