Set up a case note on Zagoreos v Zagoreos [2018] FamCA 4. The case note needs: - Facts of the case (counting the Ratio Decidendi of the case) 150-200 words - Issue/s from the case - Decision/judgment held by the court - Reasoning for the judgment - Future Lessons that individuals can gain from it Again Please take note of that exclusive vital data needs to go into this case note. The main assets you requirement for the undertakings I will download. be that as it may, on the off chance that you require more assets, at that point please utilize it (yet just utilize essential sources) AGLC referencing as it were Contextual investigation FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 1 FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA ZAGOREOS and ZAGOREOS [2018] FamCA 4 FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the spouse battles that it isn't simply and fair for a property change request to be made – Where the spouse declares the gatherings did not consolidate their separate funds – Where the spouse looks for a discrete hearing on the issue of whether a property modification request ought to be made in accordance with s 79(2) – Where it is discovered that a discrete hearing would not be helpful or fitting in the conditions – Where the spouse's application is expelled. FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the spouse looks for costs on a reimbursement premise – Where an application for reimbursement costs isn't conceded in the conditions – Where costs are requested against the spouse on a gathering and gathering premise. Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) Bevan and Bevan (2013) FLC 93-545 Chapman and Chapman (2014) FLC 93-592 Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Limited (1993) 118 ALR 248 Handling and Nichol [2014] FCWA 77 Kohan and Kohan (1993) FLC 92-340 Prantage and Prantage (2013) FLC 93-544 Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun (1981) 147 CLR 589 Southwell v Bennett [2010] NSWSC 1372 Stanford v Stanford (2012) 293 ALR 70 Candidate: Mr Zagoreos RESPONDENT: Ms Zagoreos Record NUMBER: SYC 1519 of 2017 DATE DELIVERED: 10 January 2018 PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane PLACE HEARD: Brisbane JUDGMENT OF: Forrest J HEARING DATE: 18 December 2017 Portrayal ?????????????? ????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????? FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 2 Direction FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Williams Specialist FOR THE APPLICANT: Hirst and Co Family Lawyers Insight FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Galloway Specialist FOR THE RESPONDENT: Michael Conley Lawyers Requests UPON THE UNDERTAKING given by the spouse to the Court not to offer, arrange of, or additionally hamper his enthusiasm for the genuine property arranged at C Street, Suburb D in the State of New South Wales until additionally arrange IT IS ORDERED (1) That the spouse's Application in a Case documented 9 November 2017 is expelled. (2) That the use of the spouse contained in passage 2 of her Response to an Application in a Case documented 13 December 2017 is expelled. (3) That the spouse should pay the wife's expenses brought about in restricting his Application in a Case documented 9 November 2017 to be concurred or evaluated in understanding with the Family Law Rules 2004 on a gathering and gathering premise. Note: The type of the request is liable to the passage of the request in the Court's records. IT IS NOTED that distribution of this judgment by this Court under the nom de plume Zagoreos and Zagoreos has been endorsed by the Chief Justice according to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Note: This duplicate of the Court's Reasons for Judgment might be liable to audit to cure minor typographical or syntactic blunders (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Guidelines 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variety to the request according to r 17.02 Family Law Standards 2004 (Cth). ?????????????? ????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????? FamCA Reasons Page 1 FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE Document NUMBER: SYC 1519 of 2017 Mr Zagoreos Candidate Also, Ms Zagoreos Respondent Explanations behind JUDGMENT 1. Property change procedures were started in the Sydney Registry of this Court by the spouse in March of this current year. On the use of the spouse, on 7 July 2017, Stevenson J requested the procedures exchanged to this registry. Presently, by Application in a Case documented on 9 November 2017, the spouse tries to have the issue set down for a discrete hearing on the issue of whether it is "just and impartial" to influence a property acclimation to arrange according to s 79(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The spouse contradicts the application. 2. Advice for the spouse effectively brings up that Rule 10.13 of the Family Law Standards 2004 grants a gathering to apply for a "choice on any issue", if the choice may: (a) discard all or part of the case; (b) make a trial superfluous; (c) make a trial considerably shorter; or (d) spare considerable expenses. 3. In deciding any such application, Rule 10.14 gives the Court the attentiveness to: (an) expel any piece of the case; (b) choose an issue; (c) make a last request on any issue; ?????????????? ????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????? FamCA Reasons Page 2 (d) arrange a catching wind of an issue or actuality; or (e) with the assent of the gatherings, arrange intervention about the case or some portion of the case. 4. The Court's energy isn't, in any case, constrained to the alternatives set out in Rule 10.14. (See Rule 1.10) The Submissions for the Husband 5. To put it plainly, the spouse's central conflict is that it isn't simply and fair for a property alteration request to be put forth in this defense. In making that accommodation, he alludes to the High Court's choice in Stanford v Stanford (2012) 293 ALR 70 and presents that the High Court held that the "initial phase" in the way toward deciding applications for orders according to s 79 of the Family Law Act is an appraisal of "the current lawful and fair interests of the gatherings in their property" and that the "second step" includes "discovering whether it is simply and impartial to make a request adjusting the interests of the gatherings in their property". Successfully, he presents that the said "second step" of the procedure can and ought to be managed by the Court in this case by methods for the holding of a discrete hearing on that issue. 6. For the spouse it is submitted at that point, with reference to Rule 10.13, that the advantage for the Court and the gatherings, in the event that he is fruitful with the conflict that it isn't simply and impartial for a property alteration request to be made, lies in the procedures being in this manner discarded totally, there being no requirement for any further trial. 7. The Court was informed that the assurance of that issue as a discrete issue would just require two days of Court time instead of five days of Court time for the becoming aware of "the total of the spouse's claim". It was said that would bring about costs reserve funds for the gatherings and the Court, and a probability that the Court could oblige such a hearing significantly prior. 8. Fundamentally, the proof of the spouse and the entries made on his sake were introduced on a presumption that if a discrete hearing with respect to whether there is any principled explanation behind meddling with the current lawful and impartial enthusiasm of the gatherings is held, there will be no requirement for valuations of the spouse's broad property interests to be given to the wife and showed into prove. Some foundation 9. The spouse is 52 years old and the wife is 45 years old. ?????????????? ????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????? FamCA Reasons Page 3 10. They differ with respect to when they began living respectively. The spouse states it was in 2006. The spouse declares it was in 2008. They wedded in 2009. They isolated in April 2016. In spite of the fact that they needed to have youngsters and over and over attempted to do as such with therapeutic help, they didn't have any. 11. When they met, the spouse worked in an expert limit and the husband was a specialist. The spouse had broad property interests, yet the wife had little in the method for resources. 12. The spouse said in confirm that he and the wife had "dialogs" at "around the time [they] initiated [their] relationship". The spouse was in the middle of settling a division of property with his previous spouse at the time and he said the spouse for this situation said to him: I would not ever need to have those sorts of issues with you. I think we ought to concur on how we will lead our money related courses of action. I comprehend that individuals can go into a pre-marital understanding which shields their benefits from assert. In the event that you need me to sign a pre-nup, I'll sign anything you need. 13. The spouse said that he reacted with words to the impact of: Great. That is extraordinary. You should, simply do whatever you need with your cash and I'll do whatever I need with mine and we'll abandon it at that. 14. The spouse said that the wife's basic reaction was: >